Wednesday, November 19, 2008


My stance on abortion is as follows. Abortion is a choice allowed to all women that have unplanned pregnancies, and this choice is nothing more than the killing of a child. However before argumentative statements are given a definition of when life begins must be given, followed by the Constitutional rights of a living individual, and concluded with y my personal convictions on this matter.
The problem with abortion is not only whether there is a right to choice or a right to life, but when that life begins. For this essay life must begin at conception. For at the moment of conception the cells begin to reproduce (the child begins to grow). Thus life has begun. However if one does not hold to the idea of life beginning at conception then the debate of when does life begin starts. Is it at the moment the fetus becomes a recognizable human, or the moment blood begins to flow? When all vital organs are there and operational, or until the moment of birth? Nonetheless if this argument is allowed to continue one may say it falls into a slippery slope fallacy, yet if life does not begin at fertilization then who is to say that life dos not begin until the child has its first cognitive memories, or when it is able to make responsible decisions? However this is not a slippery slope fallacy it is the logical outplaying of an argument, for if there is no clear definition of when life begins then there is no clear definition of when killing becomes wrong. Therefore in this essay life begins at conception, the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg.
The fourteenth amendment to the United States of America’s Constitution states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As well as the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
These two documents, documents that all American’s must consent to, state clearly that all persons are endowed with unalienable rights, and these rights shall not be abridged nor shall the State deprive any person of these rights. The first mentioned in these two separate lists of what cannot, should not, and must not be tampered with, is life. Life. Not choice. Choice is subservient to life.
For one to make a choice one must be alive. Thus within the pro-choice argument life is given to those that make the choice, but denied to those that are unwanted. If one were to look at this with a Kantian eye one would see an unsound argument. That life can be allotted to one, but to another it can be taken away. Even if Kant is taken away from the problem one still sees a discrepancy, how and why is one allowed to take the life of a child, but not allowed to take the life a teenager, young adult, or the elderly? For if life has no clear definition of beginnings, then killing also has no clear definition of being wrong. For when does killing become the taking of life, if one is not yet alive?
However, under Roe V. Wade if one stands trial for killing their eight-year-old son and says it was abortion because the child was not serving the parents purpose then the courts would have to release this murdering parent. For there is no clear definition of when life begins under Roe V. Wade. But someone would cry this is a, “Travesty of justice” you cannot simply kill a child because they were not serving your purpose. But we can abort a baby because it is unwanted, or does not serve ones purposes.
In short the rights of a newly conceived child do not exist; we as a country have stolen them away. Making him/her a choice, depraving him/her from his/her life, because we wanted our life to continue on without any annoyance. This is the epitome of selfishness. But one may cry ‘what of rape?’ Would not a truly Good Samaritan carry the child to term, and give it a chance at life, rather than destroying it? We are created in the image of God with a certain unalienable right to life, and as image bearers of God we must see abortion as nothing more than defiance against God. Not only by trying to play God, but as seeing His creation as nothing more than an annoyance and killing it off because of our pride. We see the innocent as an inconvenience and kill them.
We, from the moment of conception, are alive, whether blood is in our veins, or breath in our lungs is a side note, we are growing, and changing, and cells are reproducing, thus by definition we are alive, and therefore to take the life of this, the smallest and most helpless individual, is a cowardly act. A human infant is more than an acorn, but one would die to protect the acorn rather than to protect the child. An ameba is considered to be a living creature, but a newly conceived child is considered to be nothing more than cells to throw away.
I conclude with this, that abortion is wrong for more than one reason. First, because it is a travesty against the God who creates, by throwing our fist in His face and saying, “This child You give is an annoyance and therefore I will kill it.” Second, because it is against the not only the Declaration of Independence but against the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Under which we are all given an unalienable right to life. Third and lastly, abortion is wrong because it is the killing of human being. Not merely an acorn or a single celled organism, but a human child. The most helpless form of humanity.

No comments: