I was rather disappointed to read the Daily editorial about the Pitts-Stupak Amendment to the U.S. House of Representatives version of the health care reform bill (Stop Stupak, 11/10/2009). As a pro-lifer who longs to see the day that health care will be more accessible to disadvantaged Americans, I was overjoyed at the passage of the Stupak Amendment. While I certainly respect the right to free expression, I cannot help but point out several flaws in the editorial’s views of the Stupak Amendment.

In particular, the editorial fails to justify why abortion should be included in federal health care. The editorial simply assumes that its audience will agree with the notion that abortion is a legitimate, morally defensible medical procedure. The fact is that many Americans — if not a majority of Americans — disagree with this assumption. Now, there is nothing wrong with proposing an idea that the majority of people disagree with, but when you do so, you must be prepared to justify your idea.

Naturally, when one proposes that abortion should be permitted, he or she is of the opinion that the fetus is not a human being, and is therefore not entitled to protection under the law. The editorial does nothing to justify this viewpoint, which is troubling, since that is the basis of the entire argument against the Stupak Amendment.

One must ask, why isn’t the fetus considered a human being? A fetus certainly qualifies as a member of our species. A fetus fulfills all of the criteria that biologists use to define an organism, like the ability to grow, respond to stimuli and undergo metabolism. Pro-life or pro-choice, you cannot deny the cold, hard, biological fact that a fetus is an organism. And, being an organism, it must belong to a species. Of course, a human fetus is a member of the human species.

Why on earth would we deny basic human rights to a member of our own species? The editorial does not consider this question. This is to be expected. The fact is that I have yet to see an argument in favor of legalized abortion on demand that is both factually accurate and logically sound. If anyone knows of such an argument, I would be grateful if he or she would supply it to me. I am rather perplexed as to why so many people call themselves pro-choice since there is indeed no sound justification for being pro-choice.

If the editorial — and, indeed, pro-choice Americans — can’t explain to me why they are justified in denying members of our species human rights, then they surely cannot expect me to pay for the practice with my tax dollars. If pro-choice Americans take issue with the Stupak Amendment, then they should sit down, think hard, and devise a logical reason as to why abortion should be funded.

Jeffrey Brown
LSA junior