What is the “right to choice” based on? The right to life!
This devastates the pro-choice argument. Why? Every single argument for choice first presupposes the right to life, depends on it, for without life there is no choice. Since these rights interact, one cannot simply hold the tension of these rights in some radically abstract space - the universe of life versus the universe of choice. No, one actually presupposes the other.
Therefore, in the case of attempted abortion, a woman is FIRST of all asserting her right to her life, and only consequently her right to choice. But since choice by nature MUST always presuppose life, the right to life is therefore the DOMINATING principle in all arguments of choice, and so in the case of the unborn child, as a human being, her right to life is qualitatively equal to that of an adult, and so the adult’s “choice” can only be a secondary conditioning factor in relation to the primary right to life. And so, because all choice necessarily follows only upon life, only when the mother’s equivalent right to life is in danger can there even be a question of abortion, otherwise the right to life is ALWAYS primary, dominant, overriding, and final.
Therefore, no one has any "right" to abort a child. The child's right to life is equal to that of a woman's, and the woman's right to choice cannot override the child's right to life.
Not incidentally, this same principle applies to cases of suicide. Since the "right to life" does not emerge out of and is not built from of a "right to choice," choice rights therefore cannot then meaningfully turn around and violate their own first principle.
This devastates the pro-choice argument. Why? Every single argument for choice first presupposes the right to life, depends on it, for without life there is no choice. Since these rights interact, one cannot simply hold the tension of these rights in some radically abstract space - the universe of life versus the universe of choice. No, one actually presupposes the other.
Therefore, in the case of attempted abortion, a woman is FIRST of all asserting her right to her life, and only consequently her right to choice. But since choice by nature MUST always presuppose life, the right to life is therefore the DOMINATING principle in all arguments of choice, and so in the case of the unborn child, as a human being, her right to life is qualitatively equal to that of an adult, and so the adult’s “choice” can only be a secondary conditioning factor in relation to the primary right to life. And so, because all choice necessarily follows only upon life, only when the mother’s equivalent right to life is in danger can there even be a question of abortion, otherwise the right to life is ALWAYS primary, dominant, overriding, and final.
Therefore, no one has any "right" to abort a child. The child's right to life is equal to that of a woman's, and the woman's right to choice cannot override the child's right to life.
Not incidentally, this same principle applies to cases of suicide. Since the "right to life" does not emerge out of and is not built from of a "right to choice," choice rights therefore cannot then meaningfully turn around and violate their own first principle.
