Abortion and Morality

3 thoughts on “Abortion and Morality”

  1. I really appreciate this post. Clear, concise, and open to discussion. These are things that have been lacking in the abortion debate, and it is refreshing to come across someone who is willing to ask the tough questions.

    I am absolutely pro-life, and would like to answer to the best of my abilities. First, even before Roe v Wade, the texts used to teach Embryology have maintained that life begins at fertilization. One example, published in 1968, says,

    “The formation, maturation, and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.” -“Human Embryology”, 3rd ed., Dr. Bradley Patten

    Moving forward to today we have,

    “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual…” -“The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology”, 10th ed., Moore and Persaud, published in 2015

    Note that both say the same thing, that life begins at fertilization. They also say that we are new, unique, and individual at that moment. This is significant, or ought to be. In either case, it makes clear that an unborn baby is most definitely a human being.

    Now, to address a question you asked. Whose rights trump whose? I subscribe to a philosophy that dictates that my rights end where your rights begin, and vise versa. In other words, I take the idea of bodily autonomy and apply it to both baby and mother. This means that the mother has no right to take the life of her child, as said child has an inherent right to life, along with every other human right we acknowledge.

    What about in cases of rape or incest? Well, allow me to answer a question with a question. Do we give the death penalty to rapists or people involved in incestuous relationships? If so, then one MIGHT be able to make a case, except that we then run into the right of due process.

    In this country, we don’t typically punish people for crimes they didn’t commit, and we don’t typically mete out punishment that is not proportionate to the crime. If we don’t execute people for rape or incest, why would we find the execution of an innocent acceptable in cases such as these?

    In all reality, an unborn child is literally incapable of committing a crime, let alone one for which capital punishment is a viable option. As such, executing them for the crimes of their parents isn’t just illogical or irrational, but also wrong.

    If it can’t be justified, then abortion meets the criteria for murder. According to law, murder is the unjustified taking of a human life, and I can find zero justification for an abortion. In short, abortion is murder, and shouldn’t have ever been legalized.

    Now, to conclude, I will address one more point, that of the father. Barring any mitigating circumstances (rape for example), I see no reason why the biological father shouldn’t be allowed to have a voice. Does this mean that men aren’t somehow lacking in the area of responsibility these days? No, absolutely not. However, I can personally attest to the fact that the courts are very thorough in ensuring that a non-custodial father sees to his responsibilities.

    Would I rather see children born only to married couples? Yes, ideally speaking. Sadly, this isn’t always the case. In the event that doesn’t happen, there are a myriad of options available for the mothers, none of which involve the slaughter of innocents.

    Thank you for the chance to say my piece.

Comments are closed.