For centuries, nations have wrestled with the issue of abortion. The U.S. is no exception to the rule. This issue really festered in American society during the late 1960's and early seventies. Pro-choice advocates argue that a woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body. These people believe that since the fetus clings to a woman's body, she has the right to decide whether to keep it or destroy it. Contrary to this position is the pro-life movement. Pro-life supporters argue that the unborn is a human being. Thus, the unborn has the right to life. In 1973, the Supreme Court decided that women have the right to an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. Since 1973, many Americans have taken part in the murder of 50 million unborn babies through abortion.
In order to understand abortion as murder, this premise must be true -- the unborn is a living, human being. The moment that sperm encounters the egg, a human life starts. This is called fertilization. At fertilization, many things occur: the babies' unique DNA is established, the cell is complete or whole, and the cell is alive. Since the DNA is established, the little infant has all his genetic information stored away. In other words, at fertilization, the DNA that determines each person's height, eye color, and hair color is present. In addition, the cell is whole. This means that the cell has all of its chromosomes and is ready to split and make more cells. When the cell is whole, the human starts to develop and will continue this process into adulthood. The final factor is that the cell is alive. This is important because the cell is not some life-less blob of tissue. Any one of these three factors, when taken alone, mean nothing. However, when all three factors are present, there is human life.
Some pro-choice members state that the unborn is not a living human being until the fetus attains viability. They argue that if the unborn has not reached viability it is not murder to destroy it. This group defines viability as the time when the unborn can survive outside the uterus. The people that I've talked with state that the unborn is viable five months after conception because medicine and technology can keep the baby alive. At five months, pro-choice supporters say, the baby can live with medical support as opposed to maternal support. Thus, according to the pro-choice advocates I've spoken with, the unborn is only alive human five months after fertilization.
This argument is riddled with flaws. Think about what would happen if medical support got much better over-night. Say, doctors and machines could support a baby who was only four months old independent of a mother. According to the pro-choice supports, this baby would have reached viability. Therefore, according to them, it would be a living, human being. The people I argued with define life based on whether or not medicine and technology can sustain it. Now imagine that at conception, doctors, medicine, and machinery could keep the baby alive outside the mother's womb. According to the definition of some prochoice individuals, the baby would have reached viability. Therefore, the baby would be a human. Many in the pro-choice camp define life based on these advances in technology; once the unborn can be medically sustained, it is life. Instead, life should be defined based on more objectives measures. Looking at DNA, cell life, and the development of the unborn are these objective measures, which will not change with the update of technology. Based on these measurements, the unborn, is a living, human being at fertilization.
Since the unborn are living, human beings, then abortion is murder. This may seem counter-intuitive to many Americans who have grown up with abortions happening on a regular basis. Here is the logical break down of this thinking. Abortion is the intentional destruction of the unborn. The unborn are living human beings. The intentional destruction of an innocent human being is murder. Therefore, abortion is murder because it is the intentional destruction of an innocent human being -- the unborn.
Since the unborn are living, human beings, killing them is murder. When pro-choice advocates confront this argument, they respond in an odd manner. Invariably, the prochoice camp avoids rational thought because rationality proves that abortion is murder. Instead, this group relies heavily upon logical fallacies. They say things like the following: the world is over-populated, someone raped the mother, or the baby may grow up in poverty. The fallacy committed by prochoice supporters is the red herring. A red herring is an argument, which is off topic, used to distract people from the true argument. The argument is whether abortion is murder. This camp responds by stating that abortion is ok if someone raped the mother or if the child would grow up in poverty. This does not logically answer the question -- is abortion murder? Throwing this information into the discourse tends to make the argument more emotional and less logical. People, who worry about over population, rape, and poverty, immediately reject logic and try to solve these problems. The pro-choice side offers a solution -- abortion.
When logic is applied, the answer becomes clear; abortion is murder. After that is decided, then the facts about poverty, population, and rape become irrelevant. To demonstrate this point, consider the following analogy. Everyone agrees that killing a one-year-old girl is murder. Nevertheless, imagine a person who says, "Well, the world is overpopulated, so it's ok to kill this one-year old." This is absurd; since the girl is a person, then killing her in the name of overpopulation is murder. (By the way, this actually happens on a regular basis in India.) The issue of overpopulation does not factor into the equation. It is a non sequitur. Comparatively, pro-choice advocates should leave out details like overpopulation, rape, et cetera because they do not factor into the equation. If abortion is murder, then it is murder whether the world is overpopulated or not.
For the sake of argument, let us consider one more scenario. A law goes into effect that states one can legally kill any child or adult that has a mental handicap. If a law states that it is acceptable to do this, is it still ok or moral because it falls within the law? Many in the pro-choice movement argue that it is acceptable to abort the unborn because it is legal; however, this does not answer the ultimate question of whether the action is right or wrong. Abortion is wrong because it is murder, and it must end.
