Hello Dana, here is my secular argument against abortion.
The Individual Human Being Vs Social Construct
When one makes a claim that abortion is the willful ending of an innocent human beings right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; the empirical scientific facts are on the pro-life side.
My point in this messege is not to use science for what OUGHT to be, but rather to determine what actually IS. Willfull use of social constructs to advise us fallaciously to what IS, becomes a rabbit hole that future generations will judge us harshly on.
We know that a human fertilized egg is genetically human and starts cell division hours after fertilization. We know that this fertilized egg is a new individual and human organism with it's own, new and individual DNA at this first developmental stage. In fact, the individual human being is not an "it" but already a male or female. We know that this new individual human being will continue this development process until around age 25. We know all these facts empirically from a consensus in the science of human embryology.
A fetus is an "individual human being" scientifically.
Individual meaning has their own unique full DNA profile.
Human meaning has their full human chromosome profile including sex.
Being meaning a living entity.
There are over 3,000 abortions a day in the US. This argument is about abortion being justified via social construct rather than condemned from the empirical facts of what it actually is. These intentional distortions lead otherwise good people to believe falsehoods such as it just being the removal of some of the mother's tissue, a blob or only cells.
Values without acknowledgement of facts can never be applied in a trustworthy means. In court trials, the facts of the case determine if our laws built on our values are being administrated within their intent. Can there be a coherent following of the spirit of the law while discarding the facts of the case? Without such facts being disclosed, one should not expect our value of justice and individual rights to follow.
It seems we must agree on the facts of what is a, "individual human being". This is the strange and hard part for me to understand because most do accept the science, they only reject the message.
I am merely asking that we protect all individual human beings that have not willfully harmed our society by welcoming them in to enjoy it. Especially the new ones. There are no questions in regard to citizenship or the innocents with these human beings we abort, just a question of our values to that individual human being we have not yet met.
We already have laws that protect us from actions when our life or another life is in danger. They can be modified to become inclusive if this is the case. Our laws are not perfect yet all but a few are designed to protect the innocent. We overcame a very similar ugly past. Others that were also innocent human beings were being enslaved as less than such. Lincoln himself admitted, "I have always hated it, but I have always been quiet about it until this new era.."
We have been adopted into this era but foolishly think we now value all we know to be the individual human being.
We have fooled ourselves with word games and social constructs into thinking we are nothing like our forefathers but are we really any better? We don't end the pursuance of life and liberty for those with their own voice, now we just make excuses and exceptions for those without. We have whitewashed what we are actually doing so much we praise these actions as a choice and liberation. At the same time, when a video or photos come out of what we are factually doing, we prosecute the messenger and conceal the message because the images are so disturbing and reviling.
Any argument that making abortion illegal does not stop all abortions is a strawman one. Of course it does not, laws and law enforcement are never a 100% preventive measure. This is the false alternative (or lack there of) argument to avoid answering the true question.
The question is, is it morally right to;
Willfully end an innocent human beings right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
All these other rebuttals about stigmas, social programs, education, compassion, self-sufficiency, contraceptives and pushishment are outside this moral and values question and are red herrings. One does not have to disagree with any of this. Teenage suicide and gang violence is not legal in any case but are also related to some of these same factors. One does not argue that gang violence be sanctioned simply because some violators are disadvantaged or that they will do it anyways.
These misleading and irrelevant lines of argument added to social constructs replacing facts are used to mislead the average and otherwise good person. One need only ask and answer; what is abortion and is this act moral and just in and of itself? This was also true when slavery was being judged in it's era. We have history to show how social construct arguments like these preserved the rights to own slaves while ignoring the facts and values of the individual human being.
Arguments that are false alternatives, red herrings and strawman fallacies avoid the truth that the act of abortion is not a value but an an ill of humanity; Just as in the legal era of slavery. The question alone is; Is it morally good or bad in and of itself? This is regardless of why many do it, how it helps the US or personal economy or that some will do it anyway.
In regard to terms such as "person", "non-person" and "personhood"; Science is silent one's individual "personhood", because it is only science. This is not a scientific question but rather a philosophical question.
"Personhood" and related terminologies are philosophically proposed states of being, that may or may not ever hold a claim as any objective fact of one's actual state.
Personhood within the pro-choice movement is merely based on whether a mother wants this unborn baby to live or not. This is not a deep philosophical or meaningful means of defining terms. The baby is protected by US laws if the mother wants he/she and discarded as not having rights if the mother does not.
Let's self evaluate a hypothetical in regard to Personal Autonomy;
Suppose there is this natural force that if Subject A is careless, this careless act causes another unexpecting Subject B to become attached to them. Whom of the two would have a logical right to claim that their personal autonomy had been infringed upon?
Subject A, who caused this attachment by a careless act knowingly
Subject B, who was merely a bystander?
Here is a second hypothetical on Personal Autonomy;
A mother with her new born baby get stuck and trapped on an elevator over a four day holiday weekend in a high-rise office building. The emergency phone is not working and there is no one near-by to hear her calls for help. She was prior to this entrapment, feeding the baby only formula because breastfeeding made her too sore and uncomfortable. The mother however has solid food for herself in her backpack but no baby formula for the new born.
Question 1: Does the mother in your moral opinion have the right not to breastfeed her baby over the next four days because; "the right to life of the baby is subordinate to the bodily autonomy of the woman."?
Question 2: Are you certain that this mother who refuses to breastfeed her new born in no way would be subject to child endangerment, child neglect or homicide laws?
This idea and defining terms of one's personal bodily autonomy rights would lead to all kinds of arguments. Woman and men both own their body yet must use that body for labor (financial support) and actions in child rearing.
Would you argue that a mother have the choice to refuse to feed her child because it required her breasts or hands to feed this child? What parts of the body must a mother share or claim her own not to share? Children are dependent on the caretaker and this caretaker must use there body and parts in these care giving actions.
Men are forced by law to use their body and minds for labor to support a child they fathered, regardless if he wanted the child or not. If he owns his body as well, why does he not have this right over his body? Why is this forced responsibility only on the man and a choice only for the woman to keep or discard? Only if the mother wants the baby, does father have to support the baby as well.
Again, my point is, that no where does this idea of bodily autonomy justify; the willful ending of an innocent human beings right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Anything less is a red herring.
There is a real world, a world not watered down and deluted to only appear solely of the strong, advantaged and perfect. This real world is diverse, challenging and meaningful. Our real world is where our future of humanity is made and preserved. Any artificial world of promises of perfection and the discard of anything less will be the end to our humanity. One can not claim to learn any virtue in a perfect world, much less one created from lies.
Our values of right and wrong have never been served towards their true intent by ignoring the facts of what is. Let's call a spade a spade and say what abortion is; the willful ending of an innocent human beings right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The solutions are to educate all with the empirical scientific facts, show the images for what they are, show the ultrasounds, show the images of prior aborted fetuses. We also need to stop using intentionally made-up terms for what a fetues is not and make it illegal to lead the charge it is wrong because it simply is. There would not be 3,000 abortions a day in the US if we did all this.
Our laws can not reflect our values while shaded away from the light of truth. Let's start a new era of humanity that is inclusive to all human individuals, including the unborn!