I used to think that abortion “up to the point of viability” is OK. After all, the logic and legal arguments said: If it (notice the “it” refers to “fetus”) cannot survive on its own, then it isn’t human and needs no protection. Of course defining “the point of viability” is virtually impossible because each pregnancy is unique and because technology is constantly moving viability closer and closer to the point of conception.
I must now admit I was wrong. Dead wrong.
I now believe that life begins at conception, not at the moment the baby comes out of the mother’s womb or at some arbitrary, legally defined (but immeasurable) point of maturation. This whole change of perspective has radically shifted my views on abortion.
This change of heart was not an emotional flip-flop. It was the result of simple logic. Cold, hard realistic logic. I would like to share that logic with you in the form of a formal proof.
|1.||It is wrong to kill an innocent human being. It’s called “murder.”||Existing laws|
|2.||Life reproduces according to its own kind. Therefore a human being cannot give birth to a dog or a horse, but only to another human being.||Observation,Science, and The Bible|
|3.||Cell reproduction and growth of the organism are key defining characteristics of life||References 3.1 and 3.2|
|4.||Cell reproduction and growth of zygote begins at conception.||Reference 4.1|
|5.||Zygote is a living human being in early stage of development.||Statements #2 and #4.|
|6.||Each human being has a unique genetic (DNA) makeup that can be verified through DNA testing with a very high degree of precision.||Reference 6.1|
|7.||When a baby is born, it has a different genetic makeup from the mother.||Reference 7.1|
|8.||DNA does not instantly change at the time of birth, and every human being has the same genetic makeup from the moment of conception in the womb until death.||Reference 4.1|
|9.||Therefore the baby is clearly a different living human being than the mother from the moment of conception – whether that baby is in the womb or in the cradle, whether that baby is 9 months old and ready to come into this world, or 9 seconds old after conception.||Statements #5, #7, and #8|
|10.||Abortion terminates the life of – kills – another innocent baby human being.||Reference 10.1|
|11.||Therefore abortion is murder.||Statements #1 and #10|
3.1 http://www.panspermia.org/whatis2.htm (What is life?)
3.2 http://people.reed.edu/~mab/publications/papers/bedau_ch24_Blackwell.pdf (What is life?)
6.1 http://www.dna-identification.info/ (DNA Identification)
Seem farfetched? Seem unreasonable? Seem “inflexible”? Well, it’s not. Our laws say that if someone punches a pregnant woman and kills her unborn baby but doesn’t harm her, then he is still going to be tried for murder. Yes, murder.
What’s the difference between my doing that and a “doctor” injecting poison into a baby’s heart (while still in the womb) as part of an abortion “procedure”? …or worse – tearing the living baby limb from limb as part of the abortion “procedure” to extract it from the mother’s body? There is no difference. None. Both acts intentionally end the life of an innocent human being, and that is murder.
Now consider this: If someone intentionally kills a human being on the street, he has committed murder because he took the life of an innocent human being. If someone intentionally kills the same human being in the safety of his bedroom, he has still committed murder for the same reason. The location of the murder is immaterial: It’s murder no matter where it occurs. The mother’s womb is that baby human being’s bedroom, so taking that baby’s life is still committing murder!
Or look at it this way: If one intentionally kills a 90 year old human being, he is guilty of murder. Same if the victim were only ten years old. Or ten days old. Or a ten seconds old. Same for a human being in the womb 10 seconds before birth. Or ten days before birth. Then why not ten seconds after conception (he’s still the same human being)? The age of the victim is immaterial: It’s always murder.
Right vs. responsibility
What about the mother’s “right”? With every right comes a responsibility. The right to drive a car comes with the responsibility of driving it in such as way that no harm will be done to another human being. If the driver intentionally runs over a person and kills that person, then the driver is responsible for murder. So what’s the mother’s responsibility with respect to her baby? It is to live in such a manner as to not harm her baby who is another innocent human being. Her responsibility is to care for that baby, that human being, whether residing in her womb or outside the womb.
If a four year old child has an accident and becomes crippled, does that mother’s responsibility end? If the child is born crippled, is that mother’s responsibility abrogated? Then by what logic can we say that the mother’s responsibility to care for that baby does not exist while the child is in the womb?
Even the government recognizes this responsibility: It requires that “Do not consume while pregnant” warnings be placed on alcoholic beverages and other harmful foods/medicines to protect the unborn baby, with potential legal consequences for ignoring the warnings. Furthermore, the government spends large amounts of money to promote “responsible” behavior on the part of pregnant mothers to not ingest harmful substances or foods while pregnant – again to protect the unborn baby. The government does this because it recognizes the mother’s responsibility to care for that unborn baby properly. Murder through abortion directly violates such responsibility.
So what about the mother’s “right” to choose to do with her body as she wishes? There is no such right for her – or for anyone else for that matter. Does the state not require everyone to do certain things with their body, such as wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle or a bicycle? Clearly there are things people legally cannot do with their body; additional special rules apply to pregnant women. For example, the government limits her ability to travel by air late in her pregnancy to limit potential for harm to the baby. Furthermore, there are some things she may be unable to do at any time during her pregnancy specifically because it may harm another human being. For example, no one can use his body to willfully harm another individual (e.g. kill him with bare fists). Similarly, a pregnant woman cannot use her body to willfully harm another individual.
We have already established that the unborn is a living human being. Therefore a pregnant woman cannot willfully do things to her body that will harm that unborn living human being. So the mother’s “right” to do with her body as she wishes is limited to not affecting the welfare of an innocent human being who is totally dependent on her. The only possible conclusion is that a mother does not have the right to unilaterally choose abortion without the consent of the human being mortally affected by her “choice.” That consent not being possible, there can be no “right” for the mother to choose abortion unilaterally.
What about the case of incest, rape? Let me ask this: Would our courts absolve someone of murder if he killed the unborn child of a woman who had been raped? Of course not! He would still be convicted of murder. I think that answers that question. The cause of the pregnancy has nothing to do with the issue. Abortion is still murder, no matter what the source of the pregnancy. The pregnancy may be inconvenient, even difficult, but what does convenience have to do with murder? Can any person kill another simply for the sake of personal convenience? Absolutely not!
But what if a mother’s life is threatened by the pregnancy? That’s a bit more difficult, and there may be special situations where a choice has to be made between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn. For example, if the mother were to die due to the pregnancy and the baby could not possibly survive the mother’s death either, then it would be more logical to lose just one life – the life of the unborn – rather than lose two lives. But such situations are extremely rare. The truth is that more than 95% of all abortions are performed for the convenience of one or both parents. CONVENIENCE!
We’ve murdered some 53,000,000 human beings in the name of CONVENIENCE since Roe v. Wade. We are no better – in fact we are much worse – than the barbarians who used to sacrifice children to their gods of fertility. At least they were murdering because they felt commanded to do so by a higher power. We do it for CONVENIENCE! We, who rightly decry the slaughter of 6,000,000 Jews under the Nazis as barbarous, have murdered nearly ten times as many of our own since Roe v. Wade!
I ask you, when another people look back at American civilization centuries from now, will they say, “What barbarians!”
This is an election year. Please don’t be a barbarian. Take a long, hard look at a candidate’s stand on abortion before making your choice. It’s a matter of life and death. God chose life for you and me, paid for it, and told us to pass it on freely. What will we choose? What will you do?
If you think this is important enough, pass it on…
Additional information: http://countercut.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/39th-anniversary-of-roe-v-wade/