#1. We support women's rights. We're all for choice too... so long as you don't kill anybody. Your argument begs the question, however - does abortion kill an innocent human being? If not, then there is no moral or ethical problem. If however, abortion represents the killing of an innocent member of the human family, it is immoral, unethical and cannot be justified. There is no such thing as a right to kill innocent people.
# 2. Fifty percent of unborn children are girls. The unborn female has a body that is separate to that of her mother. She has her own unique DNA. Her genetic code directs the development and growth of her own body, from the moment of conception. Therefore, one out of every two abortions takes away the rights of a woman. It takes away her right to control her own body. It takes away her right to choose anything in the future. It takes away a right more fundamental than the right to choose - the right to not be killed.
About Robert P. George
Robert P. George is the Herbert W. Vaughan Senior Fellow of the Witherspoon Institute. He is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. From 2012 to 2014 he was a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School.
Professor George is Chairman of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. He previously served as a presidential appointee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights and as a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics. He is a former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States, where he received the Justice Tom C. Clark Award. He has also served on UNESCO’s World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST), of which he continues to be a corresponding member.
Professor George is the author or co-author of eight books and the editor of several more. His articles and review essays have appeared in the Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, the Columbia Law Review, the University of Chicago Law Review, the Review of Politics, the Review of Metaphysics, and the American Journal of Jurisprudence. He is a frequent contributor to Public Discourse and to First Things magazine, where he is a member of the editorial advisory board, and has also written for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, National Review, Touchstone, the Boston Review, City Journal, and the Times Literary Supplement.
Among his awards and prizes are the Presidential Citizens Medal, the Honorific Medal for the Defense of Human Rights of the Republic of Poland, the Canterbury Medal of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Bradley Prize for Intellectual and Civic Achievement, the Philip Merrill Award of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, the Sidney Hook Award of the National Association of Scholars, the Paul Bator Award of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy, a Silver Gavel Award of the American Bar Association, and the Stanley Kelley, Jr. Teaching Award in Politics at Princeton. He was the 2007 John Dewey Lecturer in Philosophy of Law at Harvard, the 2008 Guido Calabresi Lecturer in Law and Religion at Yale, the 2008 Sir Malcolm Knox Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of St. Andrews, and the 2010 Frank Irvine Lecturer in Law at Cornell University.
Professor George serves on the boards of directors of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Institute on Religion and Democracy, and the Center for Individual Rights. He serves on editorial boards of the American Journal of Jurisprudence, the Journal of International Biotechnology Law, and Touchstone and First Things magazines. Professor George is general editor of New Forum Books, a Princeton University Press series of interdisciplinary works in law, culture, and politics.
In addition to his academic work, he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and serves as Of Counsel to the law firm of Robinson and McElwee.
A graduate of Swarthmore College and Harvard Law School, Professor George also earned a master’s degree in theology from Harvard and a doctorate in philosophy of law from Oxford University. He was elected to Phi Beta Kappa at Swarthmore, and received a Knox Fellowship from Harvard for graduate study in law and philosophy at Oxford. He holds honorary doctorates of law, letters, ethics, science, divinity, civil law, humane letters, and juridical science.
Pro Life or Pro Choice - Sample Essays - New York essay
The following are a sample pro-life rebuttals to common pro-choice arguments. Please note that wording is presented here in a casual, conversational style to reflect the natural manner of speaking that one might have in a face-to-face conversation with pro-choice friends, relatives, classmates or co-workers. If dialoguing with somebody in writing, the wording, grammar and/or tone might have to be modified.
This is the third book in a series over 25 years
Pro-life answer: #1. That statement begs a deeper question - what is the unborn? If the unborn is in fact a human being, we cannot choose one person's convenience over another person's life. The inherent right to not be killed always ranks higher than the alleged right to be free from hardship or inconvenience.
#2. It is false to suggest that their future educational and career goals must end because one becomes pregnant. With the choice of adoption and the many support programs which exist today, young women or teens can postpone their educational plans but still achieve them.
If a Man Doesn’t Want to be a Father, He’s a Deadbeat; …
With that said, you’re clearly right about this much: The reality is that the pro-life side does accept, must accept, that abortion restrictions will lead to some tragic cases, some illegal abortions that accidentally kill the women who obtain them. But I think the evidence I’ve just cited offers good reasons to believe that these tragedies need not be nearly as inevitable and pervasive as the pro-choice side assumes, that they would be horrible exceptions rather than a back-alley rule. I also think that there might be further steps that a pro-life society might take to render them more exceptional still, about which I’ll say more in a later answer.