Today's topic shouldn't even need to be discussed. However, considering our culture today, it seems that it does. Two challenges have been made for today, the day of Tuesday, September 29th. Planned Parenthood has issued a challenge to wear pink on this day, supporting their organization and a woman's right to choose. A counter-challenge was made to wear red on the same day, representing the innocent blood that they shed, and thus, opposing Planned Parenthood. These challenges show that this is a big issue in our society. So, sadly, the topic must be discussed."No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother."
-Margaret Sanger (Founder of Planned Parenthood)
Where do I begin? Where can I possibly start the analysis on this subject? I suppose the only place to start is to look at whether this is a living baby or just a clump of cells. After all, the entirety of the discussion depends on the answer here. And of course, the answer is that they are living babies. Why do I say this? Because children have survived abortion attempts. Other children have been born early in emergency situations, during a time when it would have been legal to abort them, and have lived. Some of these are children that I know. The very fact that this is possible shows that the babies are alive. If they were just clumps of cells, then they would never survive abortion attempts, because there would be nothing to survive. It would just be the removal of some tissue, rather than killing a baby. And of course, since it wouldn't be killing, there would be no survival involved, because it was never alive to begin with. But babies have survived. Babies have been born while abortions would still be legal. This clearly shows that it is a living baby, not a clump of cells.
Adam4d.com comics regarding this topic:
Jeremiah and Abortion
Does Slavery ever Bother You?
To expand on this topic of whether or not the child is alive, we must ask what we know about it. That is to say, can you prove with 100% certainty that it isn't alive? If it is alive, then knowingly killing it is murder. If you don't know whether it's alive or not, then you shouldn't do anything that could kill it. You don't get to say, "well, we don't know that it's alive," because you don't know that it's not alive either. The only situation in which abortion is acceptable is if it isn't a living baby, and you know with absolute certainty that it isn't a living baby. So, can you provide proof that it isn't alive? I doubt it.
Further reading/source for this logical chain:
If You're Not Sure, Don't Run it Over
Don't Know What a Fetus Is? Here Are Your Options.
The next area to be looked at is whether down syndrome or other birth defects have any bearing on this topic. The answer here is clearly "no." A life is still a life, regardless of whether or not they have any sort of birth defect. After somebody is born, it is not legal to kill that person just because they have a mental disorder, or a physical disorder, or because they're annoying you, or any other reason. Birth defects do not make the baby less alive if it is alive, or more alive if it is not alive."I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
Well, what about in situations of rape? Should an abortion be legal then? Rape is a terrible thing, but again I have to say that no, it doesn't excuse an abortion. Imagine a scenario in which a woman is attacked in a dark alley at night and beaten up. But instead of raping her, the attacker shoves a one-year-old child into her hands and runs away. Is it okay to kill this child? Of course not! You can talk all you want about how the woman isn't ready, or doesn't want it, or can't handle the responsibility, but the child is still just that: a living child. The child can be brought to an orphanage, but should not be murdered, under any circumstances!
Of course, the main issue that's brought up today is that of women's rights. After all, isn't it the woman's choice? Logically, the answer here is once again, no! I do not have the right to choose to kill another human being, no matter how much they inconvenience me. Does this mean that I have no rights? Of course not; rather, it means that the other person does have rights. The woman of course has the right to make certain decisions, but those rights end when it involves the removal of another person's rights. The baby, if it is a living human being, has the right to life, and nobody can remove that right from it. The only way that abortion is acceptable is if, as shown earlier, it could be proven that the baby is not alive, and therefore, has no rights. If the baby is alive, then his or her right to life triumphs over the mother's right to convenience."It seems to me as clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime."
Adam4d.com comic regarding this issue:
Freedom and Rights for All Women
"When we consider that women are treated as property it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton
There are, of course, a few remaining objections. I have heard from several that we ought to have our focus on those children who have already been born. I absolutely agree, those who have already been born are important, and we should do what we can to help them. This does not, however, negate the importance of those who are still in the womb and are being killed daily."It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
Ultimately, we must look at the topic of abortion and decide where we stand. Regardless of whether other topics are important as well (e.g. women's rights, post-birth orphans, etc.) abortion still must be dealt with. You must either prove that these are not living beings that are being killed, or you must call for an end to abortion right now, until such a time as you can prove that they are not alive (if indeed you even can, in spite of the previously explained evidence to the contrary).
Adam4d.com comic regarding this issue:
Silence in the Face of Evil
Women have the right to choose- unless that choice infringes on the rights of another human being. And unborn children must be assumed to be alive unless it can be proven that they aren't (which, considering the evidence, I don't believe is possible). We ought to take a stand on the issue of abortion and speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.
"I certainly supported a woman's right to choose, but to my mind the time to choose was before, not after the fact."
-Ann B. Ross