Abortion Now
Abortion does have some things going for it. The procedure is CHEAPER, by a long shot, than a full term delivery. It disrupts a woman’s life and life style much less than a pregnancy would. It’s also SAFER, statistically, than term delivery, either vaginally or by Cesarian section would be. Terminating a pregnancy will often lessen the burden on society that bringing to term another individual from, in many cases, a “disadvantaged” background might make. And, it will reduce the chances that another child finds themselves unwanted or worse. There are also some analysts that believe that abortion is the single biggest factor in the massive reduction in crime in America that took place in the 1980s when abortion became widely available following Roe v Wade in 1973. Yep, abortion has a lot to recommend it. There’s one problem, however…
Despite all of the advantages and convenience that abortion offers, abortion is, in my opinion, morally WRONG. And, to understand why I say this, it’s instructive to look at the arguments supporting the practice of abortion, and I’ll demonstrate that those arguments are based upon false premises.
The first such premise hinges on just what a fetus really IS. Proponents of abortion try to make the case that a fetus is simply a part of a woman’s body, like a gallbladder or perhaps an appendix; mere tissue that may be removed as necessary or desired without any ethical concerns what-so-ever. The inconvenient truth, however, is that this is not so. The human fetus is DISTINCT from it’s maternal host (upon whom, indisputably, it depends upon for the length of gestation). It has DIFFERENT DNA than the mother. Quite simply, it is NOT the mother’s tissue. Yes, it is undeniably WITHIN the mother’s body, but it is DISTINCT from the mother’s body. One can biopsy ANY cell in the fetus and find that it differs from a biopsy of ANY cell in the mother. In other words, it’s a living creature IN ITS OWN RIGHT. And its DNA, as well as every cell in its body, is HUMAN – and should be treated as such, with the same rights, to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that all of us enjoy.
The next false premise is to frame the abortion debate in terms of CHOICE. The liberal mantra is “If you don’t believe in abortion – then don’t have one!” In such a discussion, they are then quick to claim that they’re not pro abortion, just pro choice. At first blush, this argument might seem persuasive. But, ladies and gentlemen, the leftist, liberal, “progressive” activists are actually NOT pro choice as claimed. In reality, they are PRO ABORTION. Why do I say that? Well, for starters, leaders of the so called “pro choice” movement, such as Elizabeth Warren, and other Senate Democrats, are trying to ban pregnancy centers that offer non surgical assistance, both financial and medical, to expectant mothers! Yes, you read that right: leftist “progressives” are trying to close down and ban such centers. And, increasingly, staff members at pregnancy centers and the expectant mothers that use their services, have been ridiculed, harassed and, in some cases, threatened. And, if that weren’t bad enough, pregnancy assistance centers have faced a campaign of domestic terrorism from pro-abortion extremists which Biden’s DOJ, under derelict Attorney General Merrick Garland, continues to ignore. And, on top of derogatory graffiti and vandalism, some centers have been bombed and lit ablaze. But WHY burn down pregnancy centers if you’re truly pro choice? Isn’t that taking away a choice?… Of course it is. These “activists” don’t truly want choice. They want to make abortion the ONLY “choice” for those with an unwanted pregnancy. Make no mistake, today’s abortion activists are NOT “pro choice,” as claimed; they are PRO ABORTION.
And, there’s another aspect of the “pro choice” shibboleth that’s seldom discussed. In general, I think that most Americans support an individual’s right to choice when it comes to matters of personal health and safety. I’m in favor of that, of course. But, what about the fetus’s right to choose? Given the tremendous drive for survival that we see inherent in all living creatures, I think it’s safe to say that the fetus would make a quite a different “choice” than abortion, without doubt.
The next false premise that is often cited by pro abortion activists revolves around a woman’s right to control her own body. The implication is, of course, that without the abortion option, women have NO control of their bodies. This premise is, demonstrably false. Excluding cases of rape or incest, women already HAVE the right to control their bodies; with the exception of rape or incest, a woman has the right to refuse unprotected sex.
Now, as I indicated above, in situations where the sexual act was not the woman’s prerogative (i.e. rape and incest) I would concede that, in such cases, a woman should have unfettered access to abortion. And, to the strict antiabortionists that would respond to this position, claiming that it is self contradictory, I would say this: in my opinion, conception in cases of rape and incest is the result of an UNHOLY UNION, and the fetus thereby conceived, can not be said to be “heaven sent” and, therefore, the prohibition of abortion on religious grounds should not apply.
Now, all of the arguments presented above would be termed “extra legal.” Legal arguments hinge upon whether abortion prohibition infringes upon a woman’s right to “privacy” and whether such a right is guaranteed or not, on a federal basis, by our Constitution. I will leave discussions on these matters to legal and constitutional experts who are versed in such issues. I must, however, touch upon one aspect of current abortion law, that, in my opinion, is not only unjustifiable, but, is INDEFENSIBLE.
During the administration of New York ex Governor Andrew Cuomo, a law was passed in NY that permits abortion in that state to be performed UP UNTIL THE MOMENT OF BIRTH. As someone who has had the blessing of a child of his own, and as a professional who has had the privilege of participating in numerous live births, I can say, with complete conviction, that laws permitting such a thing are an abomination; such late or near term abortions are, in my opinion, not abortions – they are infanticide.