Kaitlin Mattingly
Philosophy 1250-001
Signature Assignment
The article that I have chosen is titled “Fundamental Issues” by Mark K. Sprengel. The article is
from abortionfacts.com. Sprengel argues for pro-life.
The issue of the argument is: Is pro-life the most reasonable and moral position to take?
The conclusion is that (15) the pro-life position is the most reasonable and moral position to
take. Mark K. Sprengel bears the burden of proof because he is making the claim that pro-life is
the most reasonable and moral position to take. The premises are as follows: (1) unique
individual human life, (2) the right to life is the most basic and important right we have, (3)
carrying a beautiful, new life to term is lesser of two evils, (4) not living doesn’t benefit child, (5)
unwanted children are not more prone to being criminals, and (6) an abortion is not a private
act. The subpremises are as follows: (7) woman’s control over body is not enough to override
fundamental right to life, (8) living will never be experienced by child, (9) aborted child will
never be a doctor, a loving father or mother a great humanitarian, (10) no value to not existing,
(11) innocent until proven guilty, (12) abortion takes us off the hook for showing love and
concern to unwanted children, (13) unborn child will affect society if pregnancy isn’t
terminated, and (14) absence of that person is a loss to society.
15
1
2
7
3
4
8
9
5
10
11
6
12
13
14
The premises are relevant to the conclusion that pro-life is the most reasonable and moral
position to take. The premises are relevant because they support the conclusion for the pro-life
argument.
Everything that Mark Sprengel said was bogus. I know this because I was friends with his
girlfriend Sara. Senior year of high school he knocked her up and guess what, he made her get
an abortion. Now it’s a surprise finding this argument from him saying how bad abortions are
when he made Sara do it even though she wanted the baby. He wanted the abortion because
he didn’t really like Sara and knew that they were going to break up. He figured that if they
were not together and had the baby that he would grow up being a criminal. You can’t trust his
appealing little argument because he aborted his own child.
Many abortions have been completed in years past and now he has to make up this argument.
Hasn’t he heard of “if is not broke don’t fix it”? Our system for abortions is just fine. We have
always used abortion with no problems so we might as well continue to do abortions.
Since I play a medical doctor on television, I believe that I have a strong authority over what
Mark Sprengel says in his argument. Since I started “being a doctor” I have learned that
abortions are an acceptable practice. I now believe that abortions are a safe procedure. Given
that I am a doctor and Mark is not I have proof that abortions are permissible in society.
Either a woman has control over her body or the government does. If the government were in
control they would make it so that women would have to get a pregnancy permit before she
was to get pregnant. Hospitals would check to make sure you had your permit before you were
allowed to deliver there. If a pregnant woman was caught without a pregnancy permit, she
would be thrown in jail and the baby would be put up for adoption. So clearly we want to keep
women in control of their own bodies.
In his argument he says that abortions “take us off the hook for showing love and concern to
unwanted children”. When in all reality if parents have an unwanted child they won’t love the
baby as much as they would a wanted baby. Since the parents don’t love little Timmy,
everything he does will make his parents furious. When his parents get angry they will start to
beat him. The police will finally get called by the neighbors one night for a noise violation and
they will find a black and blue screaming Timmy. The police will then put him in a foster home
where he will grow up hating his parents and committing crimes. Timmy will get caught beating
his foster mother and he will get sent to jail. So you see if an unwanted child isn’t aborted then
he most certainly will grow up being a criminal and have no life outside of his jail cell.
Dear Mark Sprengel,
In your argument you explain how “the right to life is the most basic and important right that
we have”. You explain how the unborn fetus is not a parasite and is a “unique individual human
life”. A pro-life view is the most moral position and you believe in it. You describe how women
shouldn’t have complete control over their bodies. Morally women cannot beat someone to
death using her fists and have it be okay since she was using a part of her body. Therefore,
women should not have absolute control over their bodies. You explain how aborting a child
does not benefit the child in any way. The aborted child will never have experienced the world
because the child doesn’t exist. There is no benefit to not existing for the child. You explain how
you can’t determine if a child will grow up to be a criminal based on if the child was wanted or
not. You are innocent until proven guilty and if you are in the womb it doesn’t apply to you. You
explain how allowing abortion from fear of ending up a criminal would mean that abortions are
accepted. If an abortion was done it would let the parents not have to worry about the
difficulties of raising an unwanted child. You explain how an unborn child will eventually affect
society and therefore an abortion is not a private act. Society will never know how that child
could have bettered the world. You restate how the unborn child is a unique human life that
has a right to life.
I also believe that our most basic and important right in life is life itself. I can feel the
compassion you have for the helpless unborn child in your argument for pro-life. I understand
your reasoning behind your view on abortions and criminals also over women’s control over
their bodies.
Although you offer good points I have to disagree with your view. I find your definition of life
incorrect. Yes the fetus has a brain and heart, but without mother there would be no possibility
for the fetus to live independently from her. I don’t believe your example of beating a person to
death with her fists is in any way similar to if she wants the baby or not. How can an unborn
child affect society even before it has been born yet? The world may be better off without
unwanted children in it.
Life is the point at which you are your own human being. Every life has certain unalienable
rights that cannot be taken away. Such a right includes women’s control over their bodies. The
unborn fetus is not yet its own human life. The disconnect doesn’t occur until the child is born
and the cord is cut. Before this moment the baby is just a growth in the mother’s uterus. A
woman should have full control over what happens to her body and she should make the
decisions herself. I do not believe that women decide to get abortions because they believe
their unwanted child will be a criminal. Although I do believe that unwanted children are at
higher risks of abuse. Society doesn’t know that the child will grow up and discover the cure for
cancer or resolve the energy issues. A mother is not taking anything away form society because
it was never in or contributing to society.
I believe my counter argument is strong. It has good logical flow. If I were to critique my
argument I would focus on my definition of life and when the fetus is a human being. I believe
my explanation to why I disagree to his argument is good.
Fundamental Issues
May 5, 1999
I feel it will be helpful to start with my basic premises as I deal with some of the fundamental issues
regarding the abortion controversy.
When two rights conflict with each other the most fundamental and important right should prevail.
The right to life is the most basic and important right that we have.
It is a scientific fact that this is a unique individual human life. It is not just cells or a parasite. This means
that we are not simply talking about some "thing" we can treat as property. This is an issue concerning a
human life. Based on this undeniable fact the right to life applies and must be weighed in against all other
considerations.
Abortion is the most extreme, permanent and devastatingly violent solution, for the unborn child, to a
clearly temporary situation - i.e. the location and dependence of that unborn child. Dependence also
continues into early childhood and this "being dependent" argument would easily justify infanticide.
When we are faced with a choice we must always choose the lesser of two evils. Does it really need to be
mentioned that carrying a beautiful, new life to term regardless of the circumstances or difficulties is
clearly less evil than the selfish act of abortion?
For myself the issue can be decided at this point. The pro-life view is the most reasonable and moral
position one can take. I realize, however, there are a number of objections and I will examine a few of
these now.
The main argument for legalized abortion has to do with a woman's control over her body. Certainly this
right is very important but is it enough to override the fundamental right to life? When one thinks about it,
this right to control ones body is not absolute. No one would agree that a woman has the right to beat
someone to death simply because she uses her fists which are a part of her body. In this case a persons
right to life outweighs a woman's right in regard to her own body. The example illustrates that this right is
not absolute and is completely dependent on what it is that one is doing with their body. The important
question really is - should a woman's control over her body extend to "this"? In this case we are talking
about abortion. As science has shown this is a unique human individual's life. This situation is the same
as our example and the right to life is still the more fundamental and important right and must therefore
prevail.
Some might say it is better to allow abortion then to have so many unwanted children in the world. But
how does not living such a life benefit the child? Whatever answer is given it will never be experienced by
this unique child who now no longer exists and never will. There is also no value whatsoever to not
existing - it is just nothing - life has value in and of itself no matter the supposed lack of quality and
besides that, always has the chance for redemption. This thinking is selfish because we are the only ones
who would experience any so-called "benefit" i.e. we don't have to see someone "suffer". If taken to its
logical conclusions this justification could lead to any other defenseless group of people lacking "quality"
in their lives being "removed" so we don't have to see them.
As for the argument that unwanted children are more prone to become criminals - better to abort them
before that happens - are we not innocent until it is proven we have committed the crime? I guess not, as
long as you are in the womb according to this argument. Additionally, an aborted child will never be a
doctor, a loving father or mother a great humanitarian etc. Those unwanted children who have become
criminals - while sad - certainly are not sentenced to death that easily and they still have the possibility of
changing their lives. Allowing abortion because of the mere possibility of becoming a criminal would seem
to mean its permissible to use the death penalty for a lot more than just murder if taken to its logical and
frightening conclusions. Abortion for this reason just takes us off the hook for showing love and concern
to these unwanted children - but that would be more time consuming and difficult and not always
successful and, quite frankly, just not as convenient for us.
What about the argument that this is a private act? But that really is not true, no person is an oasis unto
themselves. The unborn child will in fact affect society if the pregnancy is not terminated. The absence of
that person is therefore also a loss to society. Furthermore, we as a society must accept an arbitrary
definition of what is human and allowed to have moral value to allow this so called "private" act. This
affects all of us in ways that will some day be frighteningly apparent should we become part of some
helpless group that society decides it is convenient to dismiss as lacking humanity and moral value. But
then it will be to late.
Finally, while I have addressed some of the arguments against being pro-life on their own terms and they
clearly do not stand, I once again return to my original premise and scientific fact. This is a unique human
life and the right to life is clearly more fundamental and important than any of the rights or arguments that
have just been examined. But maybe I have unfairly stacked the cards in my favor. I admit the definition
of life in my premise is the strength of my argument. What if we could define life in such a way that
abortion is permissible? There are people who are attempting to do just that. But this means they have
already determined that abortion is permissible. Their attempts at redefining human life do not prove that
abortion should be permissible but rather only provide evidence of the lengths they will go to in removing
such obstacles. We want the power of abortion, so lets just ignore the irritating facts and redefine being
human. Didn't we have enough of such actions with the Nazi's or slave owners? Shouldn't we be more
concerned with the truth of the matter rather than with artificial definitions that makes things more
convenient for us? The strength of the pro-life position is not because of some clever definition of life.
Rather the facts force us to acknowledge that this is a unique individual human life, whose helplessness
in the womb can either motivate us to compassion, nurturing and protection or be used as an excuse and
opportunity to exercise our deadly power.
(Sprengel, 1999)
Identification of fallacies from page 2
First paragraph I used ad hominem – inconsistency.
The second paragraph was false appeal to authority – appeal to tradition.
The third paragraph was false appeal to authority fails first condition.
The fourth paragraph I used a false dilemma.
The fifth paragraph was slippery slope.