Abortion: A Thoughtful Opinion

There is widespread dissention these days among professionals and laymen

alike over a volatile issue as fundamental as life itself abortion. Since the

1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Roe v. Wade case which cleared the way for

legalized abortions, there has been relentless opposition from pressure groups

contesting the legality of infanticide. These pro-life movements gained the

support of the White House in the 80 s and legislation was being considered to

alter the current law. But now the ensuing battle intensifies with the election

of a pro-choice president in 1993. Abortion activists denote a primitive solution

to an unwanted presence; a merciless, easy way out. Pro-lifers sustain their

position with an intuitive ethical approach based on a respect for human life. In

either case, the vision of the warring sides is obscure at best. Isn t this

sentient issue beyond the concern of individual preference?

There are many types of myths propagated to advance the cause of abortion.

But when we consciously consider the issues of population control and individual

choice, the answer can be made conclusive. Not only does abortion become morally

unjustifiable, but there are no legitimate grounds for such tactics. It is

proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence that We hold these truths to be

self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their

Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and

the pursuit of happiness. In other words, certain rights come from God, the

Creator not others. One birthright we all expect is life itself. For one to say

he has the right to perform or engage in abortion is foolish because he has to

prove God gives him that right. The conventional arguements advancing abortion

are not defensible.

Overpopulation is a popular arena in the circus of the abortion issue, but

the hard facts suggest that our lack of resources are actually due to

mismanagement. It is calculated that ten to twenty times the land is required for

the fattening of beef as is necessary for growing crops. Because people want to

raise cattle for slaughter, they have to feed an animal so much to kill it and

get the meat. If that same land is used simply for grain you get ten times more

food. Also, governments regulate food stockpiles by storage or destruction as a

means of obtaining feasible prices on the market while environmental pollution is

condoned. Why is the presence of innocent children or even illicit sex blamed for

the demand on the resources of the world? Abortion is not the answer to

environmental control.

There are certainly unwanted children who are brought into this world, but

is that cause enough to resort to murder? Should we indiscriminately kill

children on the pretext that a child is not loved enough? What kind of morality

is that? How do we decide the criteria by which a child is loved enough? So why

not search out the unwanted at any age and kill them? It s ridiculous! Who s to

say what any individual s quality of life will be in the future? And what

mentality does a creature have that can sacrifice all others for himself?

Many people have the current view that a woman has the choice to do with her

body as she pleases. Let s analyze how she can prove her body belongs to her .

That s the real point. Is it her body because she is inside the body? If that s

the case I can just walk inside any Bank of America building and say, This

building belongs to me because I m inside it. In other words, is it logical to

say that because I m inside of something that it belongs to me? Why is it her

body? She can claim it s her body like I may claim my body is mine, but if I am

captured at gunpoint I am powerless. Of course, by physical strength someone can

subdue the body. If someone kidnaps a woman and locks her away so that only they

feed her, then it is their body. She may say it s an outrage or whatever. But the

facts are they ve got it. Therefore, if she says, My body is mine it must be a

metaphysical claim. She must be referring to some higher principle that it is her

body. If she is just talking about physical control it doesn t belong to her

anymore; someone overpowered her. Consider the conditions of war: the government

controls the body and sends it to fight. Therefore, how can she prove her body

belongs to her?

A woman will often argue free choice on the basis that she is independent or

has free will, but she is not independent of nature. Nature controls the body,

makes it sick, and ultimately kills it. So who actually controls the body?

Doesn t the body actually belong to nature? Can a woman justify abortion because

she has free will? Can she fly in the sky with her free will? What if by her free

will she decides to commit any crime? Does it mean it s not a crime because she

has free will? That s no logic. No one would deny that she has free will. Does

that mean there is no right and wrong because she has free will? She is

independent. Can she commit any crime? Can she avoid old age and death? What is

her independence? What is her free will? Is it the idea of the American

Constitutional Republic that whatever you feel is right you can do?

As individuals we have little right to decide for ourselves what is right

and wrong because if we could decide what is right and wrong, then we could do

anything we want. If a woman can decide that it is right to perform an abortion,

another person can decide that it s right to lock her up in a dungeon and...

therefore he may say that her body belongs to him. If she has the right to

perform an abortion, why doesn t he have the right to do something to her? That s

also his right. His body belongs to him just like her body belongs to her. So,

therefore he wants to use his body to beat her over the head with a big stick.

You see, that s what he wants to do with his right. And since he can decide what

is right and wrong, he decides it s right to beat her over the head with a stick.

So why is it wrong? Why is anyone against rape? Why can t rapists molest women if

they think it is right? It s their body. They think it is right so it is right

for them. That s how pro-abortion advocates argue. Why argue that one can do

something if it doesn t affect others? What if it does affect others? What s the

big deal? A woman affects others by her abortion. Millions can be affected should

her child have become a great civil rights leader or a scientist who cures an

epidemic disease. And what to speak of how the fetus is affected? If ordinary

people without any reference to God can be their own authority, then I can be my

own authority.

If a female says she can hurt herself as long as it doesn t hurt others,

it s just her opinion. If she decides her action is true, then I can just decide

something else which is also true. Its just a difference of opinion. Why is her

opinion any more authoritative than mine? So, then there is no authoritative

opinion and things become distorted and manipulated by those who care not for

logical issues, but rely on emotional appeal. Whoever can speak well is truthful.

Whoever has more physical clout is pious. This is certainly a scary scenario.

Abortionists who insist on the right to the fate of their own bodies

conveniently overlook the larger existential issue of life. They want to kill and

avoid the responsibility that accompanies choice. People break the law and

suffer, so therefore take away the law. What kind of logic is that? If someone

commits a crime against God, against the state, and they suffer because of that,

then of course, nothing can be done. Why not just enforce the law? Things become

a farce when self-indulgent (demoniac) interests are passed off as ethical

sentiment, i.e. the right to choose. The result is bewildering for the innocent

and collectively damaging to us all as society becomes saturated with corruption.

It says in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by the

Creator. It doesn t say that we just have rights. We don t just have rights

because without God, if there s no soul, what are we? We re just physical

organisms. So, therefore, if I come and harm you, it s just some physical-

chemical thing that took place. Its not right or wrong. Where does right and

wrong come from? All major religious text and even our own Constitution say

ethics come from the Creator. It is our individual responsibility even our

purpose to understand and cooperate with Gods laws. In doing so, we cooperate

with others and express a basic respect for life!