"Life begins at conception, therefore, abortion is murder." This simple assertion typically results in one of four reactions among the vast majority of individuals in American society: fierce support, venomous demonization, apathetic indifference or cowardly deference. Only one of these responses is the correct response. Can you discern which?
If you are still reading, congratulations are in order, as you are open to hearing a reasoned argument concerning a sensitive and emotionally volatile topic of discussion. It is in discussions such as these, where keeping a level head is of paramount importance in order to arrive at the most logical and morally grounded decisions concerning what actions need to be taken.
I have presented an assertion, which I believe to be objectively true in the most epistemological manner. I will back up this assertion with comprehensive factual evidence both in the scientific, philosophical and spiritual senses. Some of you may agree with my interpretation of those facts, some of you will not. Specifically, to those who do not, I ask that you continue reading until the end in order to (if nothing else) gain a deeper understanding of the issue, which will help you formulate your own opinions. Perhaps your mind will be changed, perhaps it will not. Either way, you will have attained more knowledge on the subject and be one step closer to the truth, which exists independently of our individual opinions. As always, links are below. Do your own research.
Before we get into the reasoning for why this assertion is objectively true, we need to establish the current tenor of the United States’ cultural and political climate...
Tuesday of last week, Governor of New York state, Andrew Cuomo, signed the “Reproductive Health Act” into law after it had passed the state Senate and Assembly voting stages of 38-24 and 92-47, respectively. The main effective measures of the bill include stripping abortions from the penal code, and legalizing late-term abortions (after 24-weeks and up to the moment before birth) at the discretion of any “licensed health-care practitioner" based on "the viability of the fetus or if the woman's life or health is in jeopardy.” Previously, only licensed physicians were allowed to perform abortions in the state. In addition, the bill eliminates the recognition of “person-hood” in the unborn and defines a “person” as a “human being who has been born and is alive.” (1)
Following the bill being signed into law, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D-Yonkers) gave the following statement,
"We’re saying that here in New York, womens’ health matters. We’re saying here in New York, women’s lives matter. We’re saying here in New York, women’s decisions matter.”
In Virginia this week, Democrat Delegate, Kathy Tran, proposed HB 2491 dubbed the “Repeal Act”, which would allows abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy in the state, in addition to giving a woman permission to abort her baby as she is dilating and about to give birth; this means, that the child can be killed up until full bodily extraction from the mother’s cervix is completed. (2) Please take a moment to internalize that image.
Virginia Democratic Governor Ralph Northam went a step further than Representative Tran when he spoke on a Wednesday WTOP radio interview and gave his opinion on the potential killing of a newborn baby even after it was born, having either survived an attempted abortion or been born unexpectedly. “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam explained. Please take another moment to internalize the situation described.
These bills, and others like them, gain their politically footing from the infamous Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973, which codified a woman’s right to procure an abortion, nonetheless without the proper passing of legislation in federal law. The legal basis for this decision was “supposedly” rooted in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which in part, grants citizens the right to privacy under its due-process clause. How the right to an abortion could be interpreted from the reading any part of the Constitution or its respective Amendments is questionable at best, and at worst a grievous example of a begging the question fallacy. Nonetheless, the discussion is beyond the scope of this article.
Contrasting the movement in favor of conferring abortion as a legal right, the annual March for Life two weeks ago in Washington D.C. attracted anywhere from 200,000-300,000 individuals in favor of eliminating abortion laws, specifically the repeal of Roe v Wade, which would reserve the decision on the legality of abortion to a state-by-state basis. (3) In relation to the opinions of the American population on abortion, according to a variety of recent national polls, at minimum, 59% of all Americans believe the government should substantially limit abortion through legislation, along with an equal percentage of women who believe abortion is morally wrong. (4)
Now that the current political landscape surrounding abortion has been established, let us get to the scientific, cultural and spiritual truths of the matter, in an effort to determine what constitutes life and whether or not abortion is the taking of life. First, the scientific considerations will be examined.
Biologically, DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) is the genetic basis for life. It carries the genetic coding of each living organism and virus, which determines everything from its growth, development, functioning and reproduction. The moment the fusion of the male and female haploid cells (Sperm and Egg) occurs during fertilization, a zygote with new and separate DNA from the mother is created. This new cell, although far from having humanoid features and functionality, is a new human life; not just the potential for human life, but human life itself. This fact is scientifically undeniable and negates the oft used incorrect point from proponents of abortion that a male’s ejaculation of his semen and sperm through masturbation is killing millions of little human lives.
This unique new cell is it’s own individual life, completely separate from (albeit completely dependent on) the carrying woman from fertilization until birth. This is irregardless of whether it is the biological mother or a surrogate carrying to term, or how quickly the zygote (or blastocyst) attaches to the woman’s uterine wall membrane (3-5 days after fertilization) and forms into an embryo (4 weeks from last menstruation). This attachment of the zygote to the uterine wall is incorrectly determined to be when viable conception occurs by many in the medical and pro-choice community. First proposed in 1959 by Dr. Bent Boving at a meeting of Planned Parenthood and the Population Council, the successful changing of the definition of conception was accomplished in 1965 when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) defined pregnancy as beginning at implantation. (5)
However, despite this political redefinition of conception, it has never changed the start date of a woman’s pregnancy which, as noted above, is from the first day of a woman’s last menstrual cycle. To get a clear, biologically sound idea of what is truly considered conception, a look at the four major medical dictionaries is needed; two of which (Dorland's and Mosby’s) explicitly support conception at fertilization, one of which argues the negative, conception beginning at implementation (Tabor’s) and one which has no consensus (Steadman’s). (6) Based on these medical facts, and with the evidentual understanding of the genetic basis for life presented above, it is logical to presume that conception, and therefore life, occurs at fertilization irregardless of whether the implementation of the zygote successfully attaches to the pregnant female’s uterine wall after exiting the fallopian tubes.
This distinction is significant, because of the moral justification for utilizing hormone treatments such as levonorgestrel (Plan-B, or the morning after pill) as an emergency contraceptive. By utilizing this hormone to terminate a zygote before implementation occurs, the argument is made by abortion proponents that life was never destroyed by this act, because “conception” (i.e. implementation) never occurred. However, conception (i.e. life) did occur. It occurred 3-5 days earlier in the woman’s fallopian tubes above the uterus when her egg was fertilized by the male sperm.
This is a point where abortion proponents will attempt to catch pro-life proponents in a state of hypocrisy by arguing that under those parameters, then the multiple zygotes created by means of IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) are individual human lives as well. This is a correct logical argument and being the case, is a terrible trend that occurs through IVF where certain zygotes are either destroyed to avoid a mother sometimes dangerously carrying too many fetus' to term at once, or frozen for possible future use. Each attempt at IVF is extremely expensive and difficult to accomplish, which results in these practices. Nonetheless, the mitigation of multiple artificial insemination, in the effort to curb destroying or “imprisoning" created human life, needs to be undertaken by both seeking parents and the medical community at large.
“Even so, that zygote is still not a human life because it has no heart-beat, no brain function, it can’t even feel pain!”, abortion proponents will protest. The problem with this standard of determining life is that by doing so, an immediate conflict of interest is created between defining life of the pre-born at any stage and those human beings currently living at any age from birth until death. What if an individual has an irregular heart defect and needs a pace-maker to regulate their heart’s proper functioning? What if an individual is in a temporarily induced coma or in a vegetative state, having mitigated brain function or none at all? What about paraplegics or those with ALS, who have lost all sensitive nerve function in the vast majority of their body and cannot feel physical pain? Defining life by these standards is not a sufficient qualification because of these conflicts of interest.
Additionally, considering these incorrect qualification for life further, many people fail to even realize how quickly these false qualifications for life actually develop for a fetus (Latin for “offspring” or “little one”, i.e. a child or baby) in the womb. A baby’s first heartbeat occurs at five weeks. Neural brain function begins at week ten. Kicking begins at week eleven. Fingerprints form at week thirteen (if it is a girl, she will have two million eggs in her ovaries by this stage). Sense of smell, vision, hearing, touch and taste develop at week nineteen. (7) With modern medical advances, at twenty-two weeks, it is possible for a baby to survive outside the womb. (8) For reference, most abortion laws in America fluctuate around the 20-week point of development, on the assertion that this is when a fetus can “feel pain” and therefore should not be terminated. (9)
“But that zygote you call human life is just a clump of cells!”, some will continue. When we get down to bare, biological facts, we are all just a complex assortment of clumps of cells. The question is not if we are just of clump of cells, but instead, what confers moral value to that clump of cells? This is a common response among pro-choice activists which naturally leads into the next aspects of my initial assertion. Namely the philosophical/spiritual aspects. Let’s begin with “Natural Law."
Natural Law is a fascinating subject in itself. The common definition of Natural Law is, “The philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature - traditionally by God - and that these can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be objective and universal."
Going off this definition, in an effort to determine what confers moral value on life, the only logical explanation is that life is fundamentally gifted by an immutable objective truth; namely, God. Regardless, what cannot be logically refuted is that, if there is no moral objective standard which grants life value, then life essentially has no value at all. Some atheistic nihilists may give an emphatic “Yes!” to this presumption; in which case I presume those individuals would like to stop reading at this point. Nonetheless, I implore those who hold this conception of human existence (existence in general) to continue on, in the least to humor me.
Still, this fact has yet to be refuted in any logical way by any individual in known history, by my estimation. Even those who have tried (Sam Harris being the most notable and contemporary individual who comes to mind) still cannot reasonably explain how morality exists without this conference of gifted value. Without an immutable objective truth (gifting life value in the form of the “soul”) then murder is no more than a gain/loss energy equation in the vast expansive history of the universe. This would result in life holding no moral weight at all. In which case, there would not being morality or immorality at all, but simply, meaningless. It should be noted in congruence with this theory, that science alone is insufficient in tracing the source of human reason and intellect, which as far as we know is exemplified in the idea of the human soul. Because science is insufficient in tracing the origins of human reason, natural law is needed to bestow life with value - this is the natural outgrowth of a mind conforming itself to God’s Word, revealed in Scripture.
Let’s look at an application for some context. Some (if not most) pro-choice advocates believe it is justifiable to terminate a pregnancy with a deformed or abnormal baby (e.g. Down Syndrome). Advocates who argue for this action, propose that because this abnormal child cannot possibly live a "full and normal” life, it is better for both the child and the parents to abort the pregnancy and save everyone the trouble.
Recently, Special Olympian, Frank Stephens’ October 2017 testimony before congress where he argued for funding of prenatal screenings and research to help people with Down Syndrome and possibly find a cure, has gone viral again. In the testimony, Stephens argues,
“I am a man with Down syndrome and my life is worth living.” He continued, “Some people say prenatal screens will identify Down syndrome in the womb and those pregnancies will just be terminated. It’s hard for me to sit here and say those words. I completely understand that the people pushing this particular ‘final solution’ are saying that people like me should not exist. That final view is deeply prejudice by an outdated idea of life with Down syndrome. Seriously, I have a great life!” (10)
From a factual standpoint, those with Down Syndrome and other mental or physical disabilities (in some cases) cannot perform certain activities to the same capabilities as those without those disabilities. This is not meant to be demeaning, simply factual. However, the designation of whether or not a life is worth living, based on what an individual can accomplish with their abilities is a dangerous assertion indeed. Every individual is unique in this respect. We all have different levels of intelligence based on a number of different factors. For instance, who should be allowed to designate what the cutoff I.Q. of an individual needs to be, before that individual’s life can be deemed “a hindrance and not worth living?” It is a slippery slope as they say, and sets a subjective standard on the value of human life.
The fact is, Frank Stephens, and others with disabilities/hindrances/proclivities/gifts, every single individual human life has value only because human life is grounded in an immutable objective truth, God’s natural law, which grants it that value.
One reasonable question to the assertion of natural law is usually, “How can any killing or murder be justified if this is true?" The answer to this question, being founded in Genesis 9:6, was also succinctly expounded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, specifically his surmised theory of the Doctrine of Double Effect. Essentially, this doctrine states, “Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Accordingly, the act of self-defense results in two events: one, the saving of one’s life, and two, the slaying of the aggressor. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore, if a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel force with relative moderation, his defense will be lawful.” (11)
There are four considerations to determine whether an act can be moral or immoral under this doctrine. They are as follows:
The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.
Under these parameters, some forms of taking life can be justified if they meet all of these considerations. This is why there is one very extreme, singular case where killing a child in the womb would be morally justified, albeit all abortion still being murder and a tragedy. These instances are when the life of the mother is literally (factually) at risk (i.e. Ectopic Pregnancies - implementation in fallopian tubes, or a pregnant mother with uterine cancer and in need of a Hysterectomy - surgical removal of the uterus). To be clear, these are incredibly limiting cases and should not be conflated in any way with New York’s “Reproductive Health Act” which allows the killing of the unborn up to birth based on the subjective “health of the mother.” “Health” in this bill’s instance can be considered anything down to the mother simply not wanting her baby. This is not a justified instance of abortion as it does not meet all four considerations of the Doctrine of Double Effect, let alone one, and should not be considered a moral act. No instance short of the need to choose between literally (factually) saving the life of the mother or the baby, as a direct and immediate (timely) result of the action, could be considered morally justified.
Moreover, to say that this singular and extremely rare outlier instance where it could be at minimum morally neutral to terminate a pregnancy to save the life of the mother, is not to say that the mother could choose to allow herself perish if it meant her child could live. It is difficult to imagine a more impactful example of an act of unconditional love, save Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and His death for all who would repent of their sins and put their trust in Him (John 3:16, 2 Cor. 5:21, Romans 10:9-10). Still, there are examples of mothers who have made such a sacrifice.
Tying this into the spiritual aspects of this discussion, it is worth mentioning, many pro-choice advocates correctly discern that the pro-life movement is largely in part, grounded in the Christian faith. Because of this fact, pro-choice advocates attempt to use Christian theology to forward their position by perverting the religious texts of the Bible. This is always done in a quite ineffective and intellectually dishonest manner by individuals who have either never read the Bible or who have done a cursory skimming of it in an attempt to find “inconsistencies” which support their preconceived assumptions. Because there are a number of instances of this, we’ll just examine one in order to get the point across.
Numbers 5:11-31 describes the ritual known as the jealousy offering, to reveal if a wife had been unfaithful or not. Essentially, the husband and wife would come to the priest and the priest would create a concoction of unpleasant ingredients, and then the wife would have to drink the concoction (which although unpleasant, was not poisonous or dangerous to consume in and of itself). If the wife was guilty of adultery, God would cause her to get sick and her belly would swell. If the wife was innocent, God would protect her from sickness. This ritual was entirely a matter of God using the ultimate physiological result to demonstrate whether a woman was innocent or guilty and nothing else. It is in reference to this ritual that some make the assertion that the concoction would cause the abortion of a fetus if the wife had been unfaithful and become pregnant. This interpretation stems from the incorrectly translated versions of the NIV (the only versions in fact) which inserts the word “miscarriage” instead of the correct translation of the original Hebrew and Aramaic meaning “your thy to waste away” or “fall away”, and “womb” instead of the correct “belly" or “abdomen.” In actuality, no mention of the woman being pregnant is ever made. The ritual was simply a test, with God as the judge, to reveal to the husband and priest whether or not a suspected wife had been unfaithful.
This is just one of many sad attempts by pro-abortion fanatics to twist a religious text, which overwhelmingly promotes the sanctity of life at all stages, into a tool for their own purposes. Unfortunately for those individuals, they lack both the intellectual and spiritual discernment, as well as the willingness to put in the necessary time-consuming analysis needed to grasp the full understanding and context of the Bible.
Moving on to the topic of “framing.” To their credit, the framing of the abortion argument by pro-choice advocates is often done in a very effective manner. Recall back to the statement given by New York Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins after the signing of the “Reproductive Health Act” into law:
"We’re saying that here in New York, women’s health matters. We’re saying here in New York, women’s lives matter. We’re saying here in New York, women’s decisions matter.”
Framing is the presentation of a particular point of view on a certain topic which can be used to support and influence the perceptions of others in relation to that topic. Unless a person can think "outside the box” that person will essentially only be able to see and conceptualize what they are shown. Consequently, the framing of abortion by pro-choice advocates is done in a manner which presents the woman’s (the mother’s, specifically) choice as the only choice that matters in the decision making process of whether or not to carry her pregnancy to term and give birth. “My body, my choice” is the common slogan used. Essentially, a woman has the right to choose what she does with her sovereign body, is the argument.
This is true, a woman does have the right to choose what she does with “her” body. However, we’ve already discredited the idea that a baby, with its own unique and separate DNA is a part of a woman’s body; it is not. Framing abortion as a woman’s “right to choose” as opposed to a child’s right to life is a disingenuous proposition which lacks the full context of the situation. Roughly 50% of aborted fetuses are female; does their right to choose exist? Well over 50% of woman are pro-life; do their choices not matter? Each child contains roughly 50% of the father’s genetic markers and traits; does his choice not matter in what happens with his offspring? Any way you splice it, it’s an illogical contradiction in reasoning.
Given the fact that a woman does not have the "right to choose" to abort her baby because it is not in fact her body, we then arrive at the question, does a woman have the right to choose to end her baby’s life under any circumstance? If so, under what justification? So far, we’ve also discredited the idea that a woman has the moral right to end her baby’s life, except in the singular instance of having to choose between the literal life and death of either herself or the baby (while still not willing the baby to die); that is the logically moral rule we’ve established. But to play devil’s advocate, are their outliers or exceptions to this rule? We have already covered a few invalid ones (i.e. infant abnormalities), but let’s test a few more.
Inconvenience; this could entail anything from lack of financial independence, lack of familial and communal support, or simply the mother’s lack of desire for carrying and giving birth. Does a pregnant woman have the right to confer moral value to her baby’s life or not based on the fact that her baby is completely dependent on her for resources and sustenance? If we look back at the test for the morality of actions in the Doctrine of Double Effect, this question does not even pass the first constraint, let alone any. Under a more common sense perspective, should the decision of life be reserved strictly based on a woman’s desire? If so, I’m not sure when every woman was granted the title of “God” with a capital “G,” but feel free to embrace that, irregardless of how philosophically, theologically and logically farcical the concept is. Regardless, the right to mental and physical comfort on the part of the mother does not supersede the right of the innocent child to its life.
Rape. Before we delve into this landmine, where people usually lose their minds (which in my opinion is impossible to lay judgement on, as it deals with one of the vilest evils of this world: the violation of a person's sexual sovereignty), let’s fundamentally establish that other than the exceptions of rape (not regret after the fact), and sexual intercourse with a minor who is not of the age to consent, yet is physically able to become pregnant, pregnancy is one possible result of a voluntary decision. Deny this as you may try, nobody in America today willingly participates in sexual intercourse without knowing it could result in pregnancy. This is because our school systems make it a top priority to begin teaching sex-education as early as 3rd grade (age 8-9; and sometimes younger grades) before puberty in both boys and girls occurs and before they are physically able to either impregnate or become impregnated, respectively.
According to Planned Parenthood’s own statistics, less than 1% of all abortions are performed on women who were raped or were victims of incest. Still, despite these limited outliers and ideological consistent parameters we’ve established, pro-choice activists insist that abortion must be legal for these women, even if it leads to thousands of women a year having abortions for other reasons. Surrounding the discussions concerning this very particular instance, one group’s voices never seems to be mentioned, i.e the voices of women who were raped and kept their babies.
In both of the two studies performed concerning pregnant rape victims, 70% of the women chose to keep their babies. According Sandra Kathleen Mahkorn, M.D. and William V. Dolan, M.D., the doctors who performed one study they stated,
"[This study indicates] that pregnancy need not impede the victim’s resolution of the trauma; rather, with loving support, non-judgemental attitudes, and empathic communication, healthy emotional and psychological responses are possible despite the added burden or pregnancy. (12)
In the second of the two studies, it was revealed that 78% of the 30% of women who had abortions after their rapes felt that they’d made the wrong decision and said that “abortion is not the answer for women who were raped.” In contrast, not a single subject of the 70% who had their children regretted it; some gave up their babies for adoption, and some kept them, but none described their decision to carry their pregnancy from rape to term as a mistake. Based on these studies, it was also shown that the women who kept their babies often had better psychological outcomes than the women who did not. (13)
Having established these parameters, and received some statistical context on the issue, we now need to ask the question, “Is aborting a pregnancy caused by rape or sexual abuse as a minor morally justifiable?” The answer to this question hinges on the answer to this question, “Is the ultimate result of this pregnancy considered a life?” Based on the logical parameters we’ve established, the answer is obviously, “Yes.” This being the case, as difficult and gut-wrenching as it may be to accept, destroying a human life, even in these instances, would not be morally justified. This is likely one of the most difficult ideological battles an individual would ever have to wrestle with. Personally, it is difficult imagining having to face such a situation; I cannot say that I could ever fully grasp the emotional state of a woman faced with this circumstance. However, although having the deepest imaginable sympathy for a woman who has conceived a child due to rape or sexual abuse as a minor, the ideological consistent fact remains that these circumstances do not justify the taking of an innocent life who had no part in the act. This ideological standard holds true as well for cases of incest, which can be equally as traumatizing and which also carry the added weight of the increase in likelihood of prenatal birth defects. Nonetheless, the standard holds true.
To offer final considerations, the rationalization of moral standards of action as they relate to women who responsibly carrying their pregnancies to term must be examined.
Many abortion proponents conclude it to be hypocritical of pro-life individuals, who are more often politically conservative, to assert that a woman be held morally responsible to carry her pregnancy to term rather than abort her child, yet not be required themselves to contribute to the sustaining of that child’s life after birth in the form of taxation. This judgement however, comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of natural law and the delineation between positive and negative rights (i.e. the right to vs the right from). Advocating that the sanctity of life be respected (a negative right) does not require that those advocating individuals be required to sustain that life themselves (a positive right); although they may very well do so through adoption, charity, and other volunteer efforts (something pro-life and conservative individuals are far more likely to do than their pro-choice, democratic counterparts - being twice as charitable in fact, according to many modern studies on the matter). (14) The most pertinent objection to this argument by some would be a mother’s pregnancy itself. However, because it was either a voluntary act that resulted in the child’s life being created (i.e. consensual sex) or was immorally and unjustly put upon the mother by means of rape, in which case a mother terminating that pregnancy would still not be morally justified, the objection does not hold water.
After the mother has carried her pregnancy to term, and there are other sustainable methods to continue the child’s life outside the womb in terms of food, water, shelter, etc., it would be at least morally indifferent and not explicitly morally bad for a mother to want to cut ties with her child. Although this is the minority of cases and goes against all natural female human instincts, it is nonetheless where adoption comes into play. There are thousands of pro-life parents actively seeking adoption; a bureaucratic nightmare, but that is for another article.
Having reviewed most of the common aspects of the abortion issue, let’s close things out with a diagnosis of, and a remedy to alter, the current trend of this pivotal societal topic.
America is quite frankly facing an existential crisis when it comes to abortion. From a legal standpoint, the basis for the “right” to abortion, hinges on the Supreme Court’s exegesis of 14th Amendment and the right to privacy under its due-process clause. However, The definition of life nor the enumeration of an individual right to terminate life in the womb is nonetheless never mentioned in the 14th Amendment. As a result, Roe v Wade is often correctly maligned as one of the most misinformed and unfounded Supreme Court rulings in U.S. history, on par with Plessy v Ferguson (1986). It severely undermines our Constitutional Republic when the judicial branch oversteps its area of authority (interpreting the constitutionality of legislation) and proceeds to legislate from the bench.
It is horrifically ironic that the factual basis for this landmark decision was in fact based on a lie. Norma McCorvey (i.e. Roe) has said so herself on multiple occasions, stating,
“Back in 1973, I was a confused 21-year old with one child and facing an unexpected pregnancy. I was persuaded to lie by feminist attorneys; to say that I was raped and needed an abortion. It was a lie. In truth, I have three daughters and have never had an abortion. I think it’s safe to say the entire abortion industry is based on a lie.”
And abortion is in fact an “industry.” The abortion industry is propped up by government subsidies, given to organizations such as Planned Parenthood who have accumulated ludicrous monetary profits by essentially tricking unknowing, scared women into receiving abortions, and then selling the fetal remains back to the medical industry and black market researchers for testing and use. (15) This wicked industry has resulted in nearly 60 million abortions in America since 1973. (16)
In clarification to the question of responsibility when examine individual women who have received abortions, a case by case examination is needed. The women who truly do not know what they are doing when they are tricked into receiving an abortion can justly be held no more accountable than the penalty for committing involuntary manslaughter. Yet, determining the level of knowledge an unknowing woman has concerning the facts of her abortion at the time it is performed is a difficult task indeed.
There are two sides of this coin: On the one side lies the deceitful medical professionals who perform abortions in full knowledge that what they do is murder, while lying and tricking unknowing women into receiving the procedure; these individuals should be prosecuted to the highest degree of the law: first-degree murder of an infant. On the other side is the rapidly increasing advances in technology such as clearer sonograms which allow individuals to see vivid images of babies at even very early stages of development in the womb. For the time being, my opinion is that the truly unknowing woman who receives an abortion, not knowing it is killing a baby (however naive that may seem), should be given the benefit of the doubt when having their case examined. However, that benefit of doubt is rapidly eroding in my mind, as it is extremely difficult (albeit, possible) to make the case that a woman could not know her abortion was terminating life at this point in time with all of the medical information and technology available to us. Conversely, not conferring that same legal leniency to the proven cases of women who receive multiple abortions, knowing full well what evil they commissioned, is in my opinion a must.
In addition to being a moral existential crisis, abortion in America has played a significant role as a detriment to the prosperity of the country. This is due to the loss of human capital that could have otherwise been gained from an additional 60 million individuals adding to our culture and economy. This is beyond capital generation and is more specifically tied to technological and various industrial innovations, as well as cultural innovations in writing, art, music, etc., which stem from the human capital (i.e. skills and knowledge) of those individuals which could have provided to further the success of the nation. If one reasonable assumption in this area can be made, it’s that human innovation is seemingly unlimited and will likely be the key factor in allowing our civilization to advance to the next stage of cultural and industrial evolution. Think how many potential industry giants like Steve Jobs were missed out on because they were unjustly and prematurely taken out of this world. Imagine, one of those 60 million could have been the next Martin Luther, John MacArthur or R.C. Sproul; the next Michael Jordan, the next Shakespeare, the next Thomas Sowell, the next Bach, Beethoven, Mozart; the list goes on. In addition to the tragic loss of life, these sobering realizations are tragedies in there own right.
Contrary to popular held opinion, the global population growth rate is actually decreasing, and western countries (particularly America) are actually below the growth rate needed to sustain a population into the future. (17) This is due mainly to shifts in culture, people marrying and having children later in life, having fewer numbers of children, with abortion playing a significant role as well.
Additionally, it is a dreadful irony that pro-choice individuals, being largely politically liberal, are fierce proponents of measures to protect animal rights and the environment, yet also are vastly in favor of measures which killing human babies. For instance, did you know there are many statutes which penalize the act of destroying the eggs of some endangered birds with hundreds of thousands of dollar fines, along with multiple-year imprisonments? (18) Yet it is legal, even promoted, glorified (some even take pleasure in it - Romans 1:32) to kill an unborn human. God, please have mercy on us.
The advances in technology allowing us to detect and examine life sooner and sooner following conception (e.g. sonograms and MRIs) have made it reasonable to assume that in fifty years, history will look back on this time and wonder how humanity could have exemplified such complete and utter disregard for the sanctity of the most innocent of human life. The core reason for our current position concerning abortion is the result of an ostensibly “advanced” culture, rife with immorality, stemming directly from weak men who do not live up to their calling, "to Love, Protect and Provide in a positive manner,” and egotistical women promoting 2nd and 3rd wave feminism in their quest for God-like power - the control of determining life. To save the metaphysical soul of our modern society, these two trends in men and women need to be inverted and eliminated. We can all start with our individual lives; “Control what we can control. Namely, ourselves. Seek the Lord and obey His word."
When it really comes down to it, despite being a multifaceted chain of talking points surrounding abortion, as evidenced by the length of this article, the only point that is really worth considering in relation to my initial assertion that “Life begins at conception and, therefore, abortion is murder”, is one question:
“Is pregnancy at every stage a human person who’s life must be protected, or is it not?” After our biological, philosophical, and spiritual examinations, with the discerning guidance of the Holy Spirit, the rational person should undoubtedly come to a conclusion in the affirmative. Life begins at conception, therefore, abortion is murder. Abortion is infanticide. And there is no logical nor moral way to avoid that reality.
----------
Sources:
(1) “Reproductive Health Act” PDF
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s240
(2) “Repeal Act” PDF
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+sum+HB2491
(3) March for Life
(4) Abortion Polls
(5) Fake Science
Austin Ruse. Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s skewed statistics, fuzzy facts, and dodgy data. Regency Publishing. Copyright 2017. p.47
(6) Fake Science
Austin Ruse. Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s skewed statistics, fuzzy facts, and dodgy data. Regency Publishing. Copyright 2017. p.48-49
(7) Stages of Baby Development
https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week
(8) Fetal Viability
(9) 20-Week Abortion Bans
https://rewire.news/legislative-tracker/law-topic/20-week-bans/
(10) Frank Stephens’ Testimony
(11) Doctrine of Double Effect
Aquinas, Thomas (13th c). Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 64, art. 7, “Of Killing”, in On Law, Morality, and Politics, William P. Baumgarth and Richard J. Regan, S.J. (eds.), Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Co., 1988, pp. 226–7
(12) Victims of Rape, Study #1
Sandra Kathleen Mahkorn, M.D. and William V. Dolan, M.D. “Sexual Assault and Pregnancy” in Thomas Hulgers, Dennis Horan and David Mall, “New Perspectives on Human Abortion” (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1981) 194
(13) Victims of Rape, Study #2
David C. Reardon, Julie Makimaa, and Amy Sobie. “Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting From Sexual Assault” Springfield, IL: Acorn Books 2000) p 46
(14) Conservatives Give More To Charity
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
(15) Planned Parenthood’s Selling of Fetal Tissue
(16) Number American Abortions Since 1973
https://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/14/58586256-abortions-in-america-since-roe-v-wade-in-1973/
(17) Population Projections
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
(18) Endangered Bird Protection Statutes