A Refutation of the Legality of Abortion

Man, it's been a while...



A lot of controversy surrounds the issue legalized by Roe vs. Wade. One side, with which I agree, states that abortion, the elimination of a fetus from the womb (or killing of an unborn baby), is murder and should be illegal. On the other side, holds that it should be legal, a woman's right. Currently, this view is the prevalent one in the political mainstream, and it's legal thanks to the aforementioned Supreme Court case. However, with simple logic, it can be easily refuted and shown to be the senseless infanticidal bullcrap it really is by proving correct the pro-life case.

The primary argument for the pro-life crowd is short and sweet: "Abortion is murder." We must first examine what exactly murder is. According to Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, murder is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with malice aforethought." Now we pause here because an abortion advocate will point out two things: the word "unlawfully" and the part regarding malice. However, there are two flaws. First, "unlawfully" does not only refer to being against law of the legal kind. The second definition of the word, according to Merriam-Webster, is "not morally right or conventional." So it can thus refer to either written or moral law, the latter of which is especially to be considered by those who claim to be people of faith. Secondly, murder does not require malice; while it often goes along with malice, it merely requires a killing illegal by legal or moral law to be considered murder.

Now that this is established, it must be established that the "fetus" being aborted is, indeed, a person. To pro-lifers this is obvious, but many abortion advocates argue that the fetus is not alive yet or even merely a blob of tissue. I shall address the second concern first. The most overarching proof is this: like produces like. A human being always reproduces another human being. If the fetus is not another human being growing in the womb, what the heck is it?

As for it not being alive yet, one needs only look at what happens inside the womb, at basic scientific principle, and at sheer obviousness. If a fetus is a baby when born and moving around and sucking its thumb outside the womb, what makes it NOT a baby when UNborn, moving around, and sucking its thumb INSIDE the womb?! Signs of human life go all the way back to six weeks of conception, when the two most basic, undeniable signs of life are both active: heartbeat and brain activity. This was one of the factors in the Terri Schiavo case, when her husband got a judge to take her off life support under the pretense of her being brain-dead and unresponsive (even though the videos showed she obviously wasn't). Still, Terri was still human, as is an embryo. Even when the heart and brain haven't fully formed yet, there is one scientific fact that people must keep in mind. Besides the aformentioned "like produces like," once the sperm and egg join, it forms a single-celled zygote ready to grow. Any science textbook will tell you that the cell is the basic unit of life, and it can thus be inferred that a human zygote is human life.

Now we know that abortion does indeed kill an unborn person. All that is left is to prove it unlawful morally, since it is currently legal according to American law. Most excuses for abortion are for medical reasons, whether it will affect the health of the mother negatively. Originally this was meant for serious health problems, but as time went on it was expanded to include minor health problems as well as emotional health. As far as serious health problems go, one can afford to get a Cesarean section before a health problem gets too bad and have the baby prematurely without affecting its health adversely. Past incidents have shown that an infant can survive being out of the womb after as early as six months after conception and earlier. Emotional ups and downs are perfectly normal for pregnancy; it's a little thing most people like to call "morning sickness." And even if a woman goes into a depression for a bit, that's no reason to kill an unborn live child, as it has previously been established that it is such. Apart from physical and emotional health, what's left? Convenience, whether someone is concerned about a career interruption, having to care for someone else, or merely about not wanting to bother with the annoyance of morning sickness or a baby pushing against abdominal organs. And convenience is the reason for the vast majority of abortions today.

What happens to someone who kills another person for making things inconvenient? They are convicted of murder.

You'll note I haven't used Scripture so far. This is because I wanted to show this from a non-Biblical standpoint so that those who do not believe the Bible can see it's more than just a God thing. However, those who claim to be Christians are even more obligated to be against abortion; for not only does logic refute the idea, but God Himself condemns it. Before we were born, He set us apart (Jer. 1:5). He knit us together inside our mothers (Ps. 139:13). Who are we to destroy that which God has created? And then there's the ever-popular phrase: THOU SHALT NOT MURDER (Ex. 20:13).

If you really don't want a child, either use protection (which sometimes fails) or don't have sex in the first place. Abstinence is the only 100% successful way to prevent a pregnancy, wanted or unwanted. If a man and a woman don't like the thought of parenting, they should respectively keep their fly and legs closed.