Abortion is murder. I know that is an unpopular and sometimes clichéd statement in Western society, but nevertheless its true. When someone claims that they believe women have the choice to do what they want with their bodies, I have to agree. But how does that give them rights over another’s body? There is another body inside of hers that she does not have a choice over. The fetus is not part of the mother, but inside the mother. Here is the distinction. I am inside my clothes, I am not part of my clothes. I am inside of a building, but I am not part of the building.
Here is the argument, broken down simply:
- What is in the womb is alive
- What is in the womb is human in nature (it has human DNA, not whale DNA or fungus DNA)
- What is in the womb is innocent of any crime
- Therefore, what is in the womb is an innocent living human being.
What a woman wants a choice to is to kill another person. Argue all you like, but this right is not one a person has over another.
Now, there are many different questions about this that I get asked, and I will attempt to answer them here. Remember, I am not anyone’s judge. But just because I cannot judge (condemn) a person, I can judge (discern) what is right.
What about in cases of rape and incest?
I dont believe that abortion is right in even those extreme, and very sad instances. This is always reacted to by women as cruel and ignorant, but let me defend my position. When a woman is raped, something horrible has happened. But does killing the most innocent party involved somehow make it right? The child has done nothing wrong, yet many would execute it.
I cannot know the feeling of rape, nor the feeling of having a child in me that was caused by such a terrible thing. But my understanding isn’t required for my defense of the child. None of us can know what it feels like to be aborted. None of us can know the feeling of being ripped from our mothers womb piece by piece. But our feelings play no part in determining right or wrong.
I am not saying that it would be easy, fair, or even enjoyable. But what I am saying is that aborting the child that is a product of rape is no less murder because the mother was a victim. It only adds one more victim, and one who’s blood lies on the mothers hands.
What about cases in which the child is born handicapped or mentally impaired? The child cant have a normal life.
First, let me ask you, please define normal life. Then once you do that, let me ask, how do you know your definition is correct? Who are we to determine who has a normal life and who does not? Some people would say that obese people cannot have a normal life. Some could say that children with glasses cannot lead a normal life.
Now some would say that the obese and those with glasses can have productive lives, and still do something. True, but why should we determine who lives and dies based on how useful they are to us?
Here is what I am saying: Having or being a mentally handicapped child cannot be easy. I would never make light of others struggles. But there is something seriously wrong with this world when we would execute someone because its “too hard” to be alive. Winston Churchill once said “A kite flies higher against the wind”. Struggles shape our character, and make us better people.
Or simply put, I could never, nor do I think anyone else should be able to, presume that unless someone else’s life fits into their idea of normal, that they will kill them.
But the fetus isn’t conscious/intelligent/aware/breathing, etc…
When you are asleep, you are neither aware nor conscious. I shouldn’t be able to execute you because of that.
As for intelligent, let me say something. We cannot kill someone because of the amount of intelligence they have. Having more intelligence or knowledge does not give someone that right. Ill give an example. I say this not to brag, but to make a point. Ever since I was a kid, I have taken placement and aptitude tests, and I am what’s known as 90th percentile intelligent, meaning I am smarter than 90% of the people in the country (well, at least academically…). So does that mean that since I am smarter than most people in this country, do I now have the right to kill 90% of the population? If not, why not? I am more intelligent, and I could make a case that their lives will never be as productive or meaningful as mine.
The fact is, someone’s mental ability is not a reason to execute them.
You’re not a woman so you’ll never understand.
Ill never understand what exactly? How it is to be a woman? Of course I wont. Nor will a woman understand how it is to be a man. But when talking about morality, and actions that are right or wrong, gender has nothing to do with it. If it was, then some things that are wrong for men will be okay for women and vice versa. Also, that allows us all to create our own standards of conduct, rather than relying on a universal absolute of right and wrong.
Also, if men cannot understand the argument of abortion, and are not in a place to decide on its legality, then the ruling of Roe v Wade must be overturned, because all of the justices in the decision were male.
I wouldn’t have an abortion myself, but I think it should be legal…
Well, then let me ask you this: why wouldn’t you have an abortion? Is it because you feel its wrong? If so, why do you think that something you feel is immoral should be legal? You can say you do not want to impose your beliefs on others, but are not millions of women imposing their belief that abortions are moral on unborn children?
Is that not like saying, “I couldn’t molest a child myself, but I think people should have that choice”?