< Changing Worldviews.Commentary >

Words are powerful - Thoughts shape - Ideas have consequences

Jonathan Krive

17 year old Law Student
Posted December 1, 2003

What's Happening to My Generation?
Supreme Court - "One-Third are Not 'Human'"

America was founded on the principle that each individual has rights. Through the course of history many new rights have been created, and some have even been lost. In 1973, the Supreme Court decided that the right to privacy included the right of a woman to abort her pregnancy. In order to extend this right to abortion, the Supreme Court held that the unborn were not human persons with rights. Since doing so, 1/3 of my generation has been aborted. For every three teenagers, there should be four.

When discussing this issue of abortion, we must establish two points: the value of human life, and erring on the side of safety. First, most Americans agree that humans are valuable because they have intrinsic, inherent worth. We all agree that humans are equal. Most people also agree that the taking of innocent human life is morally wrong. Second, when dealing with human life, we must err on the side of keeping life, and not taking it. We would be horrified at the demolitions expert who blew up the building without first checking if any human life existed in the building. He would be considered criminally negligent at best if he did take any human life. Therefore, in order to justify abortion, we would have to establish unequivocally and absolutely, that the unborn is not human.

In order to answer the debate over abortion, let us journey into the kitchen. Imagine that you are washing dishes and your son comes up behind you. He asks “Daddy/Mommy can I kill this?” The first question you would probably respond with is, “What is it?” If it is a snail or ant, then you probably won’t have any problem. However, if it were the neighbor’s cat or his younger brother, then you would stop your son from carrying out his idea. The ultimate question on this subject is, “What is the unborn?” If the unborn are human, then no other issue such as privacy, or the right too choose are relevant. No one would argue that a mother has the right to choose whether or not to kill her 6 month-old baby. She does not have that right because that baby has inherent value as a human. Likewise, no one would contend that a mother may kill her son as long as it is done in the privacy of her own home. The right to privacy does not exist in that situation because no one has a right to take innocent human life. The ultimate question is, “Are the unborn human?”

I propose that when you as a person were conceived you were a distinct, self-integrated, whole, human being. We can substantiate this idea in two ways: First lets take a look at the biological aspect, and then we’ll look at the philosophical aspect.

According to Dr. Landrum Shettles, the first scientist to achieve conception in a test tube, he says in his book Rites to Life conception not only confers life, it “defines” life. Dr. Alan Guttmacher, who is a former Planned Parenthood president, acknowledges in his book Life in the Making, in reference to life beginning at conception, “This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t part of the common knowledge.”

According to the Law of Biogenesis, living things reproduce after their own kind, meaning: a dog reproduces a dog, a cat reproduces a cat, and a human reproduces a human. If you want to find out what species something is, just look at its parents. Humans cannot reproduce as tumors, or any of the other things that the unborn have been described as. Biologically, the unborn must be human.

Now let's address the philosophical aspect. Most people agree that the newborn are completely human. However, the unborn differ from the newborn in only four ways, none of which are relevant to its status as a human: Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency. If you don’t meet these 4 criteria are you less human? Let’s take a look; first:

Size: The unborn are smaller than the newborn, but does size have anything to do with the right to life? If so, then men have more rights than women because they are generally bigger, and pro-basketball players like Shaquille o’ Neil have the most right of all. Clearly size is not a criterion.

Level of Development: The unborn are less developed than the newborn, but aren’t the newborn less developed than a child, and children are less developed than adults. You don’t reach your peak of mental development until age 40, so if level of development is a criteria for being human, most of you haven’t become even half way human yet. Just because you aren’t fully developed does not mean you are less human.

Environment: Again, the unborn is located in a different place, but how does location suddenly change you into a non-human? You all agreed that a newborn baby is human. Well the only difference between the newborn, and the unborn, is 8 inches of birth canal. So we are saying because the fetus moves 8 inches, it suddenly becomes human. Environment is not a criteria for being a human.

Degree of Dependency: It is true that in the first two trimesters, an unborn child is not viable on its own. But if viability is what makes one human, then everyone who is dependent on a pace maker, or some form of medication would have to be declared less human. A few months ago, two Siamese twins from Egypt were in the news. Even though one of the twins was physically dependent on the other twin, you would all agree that both of them are human. Could we have killed one of the twins simply because he was dependent on the other twin?

We can see that the unborn child differs from a newborn child in only four ways none of which disqualify him or her from being a human.

So what have I established?

1. That we should not kill humans because of their inherent worth;
2. That the unborn is human from both a biological and philosophical standpoint.

If the above two points are true, then the ultimate conclusion must be, it is wrong to kill the unborn, because they are human.

Jonathan Krive is an 18 year old Certified Legal Assistant, national debate team star, and accomplished pianist. Having met the legal requirements for high school graduation at age 15, Jonathan is a graduate of the Oak Brook College of Law Paralegal School. The 2004 winner of the National Right to Life Oratorical Contest competing against state winners of 20 other states, he has competed in the National Christian Forensics and Communications Association for four years, winning Original Oratory at both the 2002 and 2003 NCFCA National Tournament, and ranking as one of four competitors who have won two years consecutively. He has also ranked 3rd place in debate in the nation. A leader amongst his peers, Jonathan works to equip his generation to take their role in the nation, as a debate coach, on campaigns of young candidates, and as a leader in Conservative Clubs of America and Teen Eagles. Jonathan is currently considering one of several offered internships at California's State Capitol. Contact: jkrive@comcast.net