Since Roe v. Wade took effect in 1973, almost 56 million abortions have been performed. The US population is 319 million. In four decades, approximately one-fifth of the American population has been legally exterminated. The excuses given for abortion vary. In some cases, the life in the womb may be hopelessly compromised by deformity or other physical condition diagnosed pre-birth. This makes abortion a form of mercy killing.
In other cases, it isn’t about physical well-being, but about certain social conditions under which a child might live. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood’s predecessor and the progenitor of eugenics and social engineering, favored abortion in cases where the child would suffer the social ills of poverty or of coming from a low ethnic caste. She considered large families a blight on society and advocated the wholesale extermination of any ethnic group she considered undesirable to the rest of humanity. Among these were people with black skin, whom she said would pollute the gene pool. She succeeded remarkably in this egregious venture, considering that, of the 56 million abortions performed since 1973, approximately 16 million were black. Even Hitler could not outdo Margaret Sanger. He killed only 9 million. Margaret Sanger openly admired him. She considered the abortion of black children a mission to save society, a kind of mercy killing that was more a mercy to society than to the lives taken.
Since Roe v. Wade, we have seen and heard reasons for abortion that are based almost exclusively on the choice of the woman who wants to end her pregnancy. She need not even give a reason for aborting. But mostly, it boils down to whether the woman feels better about killing the life growing in her womb than she does about carrying it to term. This too is a form of “mercy” killing, but without the slightest excuse that it is for the benefit of the child. It is killing exclusively for the mother’s comfort.
In survey after survey, when asked whether they favor abortion, women have said that they do not favor it for themselves but that they favor some other woman’s right to choose whether or not to abort. This is invalid reasoning. If one favors the right of someone—anyone—to choose the death of another, one favors that death as much as the person who is doing the choosing. There is no moral sliding scale here.
As to the argument that the fetus is nothing more than a glob of tissue, then why is it necessary to have a procedure in which its life is ended by stopping its heart or vital processes? And even if one perceives that the fetus is only tissue, what kind of tissue is it: a tree, a fish, a rare bird? No, a human fetus is destined to become a functioning human being.
The process begins with conception. Even the word “conception”–derived from the Latin root “concepiere” and “conceptus” meaning to take in and hold, as in an egg which takes and holds the sperm–indicates clearly that the point is for the sperm and egg to join and “conceive” a life which will gestate and become a person. Regardless of terms bantered about in forensic debate, there is no denying that what is inside the womb during the gestation period for all mammals is a life. Therefore, whether it is tissue or more than tissue, it is human tissue which is unquestionably alive.
Women will often speak angrily of arguments against abortion. These arguments always center upon the rights of the mother and always presume that the life within the womb belongs to that mother to use and dispose of as she wishes. Notice the term “mother” is always used, causing one to ask further: can a woman be mother to mere tissue? The question is rarely asked, however, in regard to abortion, whether someone possesses the right to decide the fate of another person, someone outside that woman’s womb.
Indeed, except in rare circumstances outlined by law, no one possesses that right, not even if it makes her feel better. She cannot, for example, decide, for instance, whether the rapist who made her pregnant must die. She may wish it, and she may file charges against him. But she has no right to determine his fate, regardless of how ugly a crime rape admittedly is. Even a murder victim’s family does not have the right to determine the fate of the murderer. That must be determined by a court of law, in a tortuous series of legal procedures. Why, then, is the life within her womb not also entitled to a judicial hearing and due process? It would seem that the question is worth a national discussion.
Does anyone have the right to end a life that she has had a part in conceiving? First, the woman had a part in conceiving that life; but she was responsible only for the physical contribution of the egg which captured the sperm of the man with whom she conceived it. But, they are responsible only for the physical contribution of egg and sperm, not for the magic of creation itself.
Whether or not one believes in God, there is no denying that the process by which life is created takes place out of the realm of human will. People do have reproductive rights, but those rights are simply to decide whether or not to have sex. All people can do to control whether or not conception occurs is to avoid it by methods that keep the egg from capturing the sperm. In cases of rape, it is regrettable that the woman is prevented from exercising her will in the matter; but the physical reality is that, once that union occurs, nature takes its course–and conception does or does not occur at the will of God or nature.
One could reason that Roe v. Wade flies in the face of our fundament laws, the Founding Documents, upon which all other American laws proceed–notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s interpretation in 1973. The Declaration of Independence states clearly that we are endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right of life. That creator is not specifically defined, leaving it to individual interpretation. But if human rights are endowed by their creator, they are endowed at the moment of creation.
It can in no way be interpreted that the Declaration recognizes the Creator as either the man or the woman who committed the act that led to conception. They are merely the agents who provide the physical means of creation. But creation itself, the endowing of life, is not the work of the parents; thus, they do not have a right to use and dispose of that life. If indeed the biological parents could be recognized as its creators and had the right to dispose of that life, then the man would have as much right to make the decision to abort as the woman. Why could he not decide to have the life destroyed within the woman’s belly even if she objected? The logic of such a proposition is absurd.
Women argue their right to abort by saying that the fetus is a part of the mother’s body. Actually, it isn’t anatomically a part of her physical self. It is a separate, self-contained entity thriving in the amniotic sack separate from, but within her body. Far from having a right to destroy a life they are merely agents in creating, parents have the obligation to nurture and protect that life from all harm.
Neither the man nor the woman has the right to do that life harm of any sort, including killing it and removing it from its mother’s belly. Whether one considers it tissue or a baby, it is the life they have no right to take; and that it is life is undeniable.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth