Vice-Presidential candidate Al Gore was debating Vice-President Dan Quail. They were arguing on the abortion issue. Dan Quail, a very committed man, very devoutly committed to the preservation of the unborn and risked his entire political career on that…
At a moment, Gore really pinned him with his back to the wall… And Gore was very sharp, he was brilliant. They teach you in debate ‘if you can’t give your own answers, learn to question the opposition.’ And Gore looked at him, eyeball to eyeball, and says “Sir, Dan, would you repeat after me that ‘a woman has the right to her own body’. Would you repeat that after me, Dan? That ‘a woman has the right to determine the destiny of her own body’.” Three times he slammed him with that comment, “Repeat after me, Dan”.
And of course poor Mr Quail could not really come back at that kind of an approach. He came up with a very meaningful answer but did not satisfy the taunt, he said “Well, every time you abort a baby you stop a beating heart”.
What I think would have been an ideal response would have been something like this, I think. Because Senator Gore had already said he was personally against it but politically he felt it was the right of the person to make the decision. So the response should have gone something like this, I believe: “Senator Gore, would you first repeat after me that ‘the life within that mother’s womb is a human life.’ Would you repeat that after me? Because if the answer to that is yes, what are you doing obliterating life? If the answer to that is no, why are you personally against it? If the answer to that is ‘I don’t know’, how many more decisions are you going to make on an agnostic platform?”
– Ravi Zacharias, from his message Cultural Relativism & the Emasculation of Truth
« Abortion – A Question of Rights An Atheist’s Take on Christianity »
a woman has the right to her own body
I think this argument is rubbish as well. A baby is not a part of a woman’s body. It grows in her body, is absolutely and completely dependent on her body, but it is a different and seperate person.
And what about the father’s right to see his child grow up? Feminism has done a great disservice to our society by degrading and demeaning fathers and their importance in their childrens’ lives!
The argument isn’t rubbish. The baby might be a separate person but there is no way to deny the effects on the woman’s body. What you’re describing is a parasite – dependant on the host yet a separate entity. In fact thinking of a growing child as a parasite yields interesting insights and potential applications of research into prenatal care.
You also assume that every father wants to assert his rights regarding the child… Not every father does.
Back to rape victim’s (always a good example), should the victim of a rape be forced to carry the rapist’s child to term to protect the rights of the father?
Besides, you talk about the importance of the father in the life of a child… If the foetus is aborted that issue becomes both null and void. And not all fathers are good fathers that have a positive effect on the lives of their children – for example my favourite niece? Her father tried to kill my sister in front of her with a knife. He regularly abused my sister before then, and lashed out at the children as well on occasion. Beside the point but there you have it.
In fact thinking of a growing child as a parasite yields interesting insights and potential applications of research into prenatal care.
Such as?
Besides, you talk about the importance of the father in the life of a child… If the foetus is aborted that issue becomes both null and void. And not all fathers are good fathers that have a positive effect on the lives of their children
And some mothers are absolutely terrible mothers. I know of a woman who in her drug-deranged state sprayed fly spray down her baby and toddlers’ throats, nearly killing them. The fact that some fathers are bad is a moot point. Some mothers are worse, why is their decision more valid than the fathers?
Back to rape victim’s (always a good example)
No it’s not. It’s a specious argument. You don’t make a general rule based on a special case. Just because it may be appropriate (and I personally don’t think it is) to terminate a rape pregnancy doesn’t legitimise the termination of any other pregnancy. You’re understanding of abortion is skewed. The vast bulk of abortions are carried out because “did not want this baby at this time”, ie, it’s not convenient.