Abortion
...because of this a fetus may be capriciously aborted. Religious opinion is slowly beginning to accept science and medicine. Any religious leader with a strong practical grounding in scientific knowledge will have to admit that every embryo has a soul. However, regardless of when a person gains a soul, religious opinion does not show any support at all for abortion. In fact, religion is one of the strongest opponents of abortion. c. Regarding Philosophy: Philosophical opinion does show some variety regarding when a baby becomes a person. This is due solely to the fact that most philosophy is of ancient origin. Regardless of whether a philosopher believes ancient philosophies (which were developed before the discovery of cells, heredity, and DNA), the philosopher would not support capricious abortions. d. Conclusion: Neither science, nor medicine, nor religion, nor philosophy supports capricious abortions. In fact, there is a narrow band of belief in science, medicine, religion, and philosophy that life is valuable, should be supported, and should not be killed when the killing is reasonably avoided. In fact, those who believe strongly in science, in medicine, in religion, or in philosophy are some of the strongest opponents of abortion. e. Regarding Choice: Currently, some small groups run large campaigns to convince people that women have a "right to choose" to abort their babies. This is absurd. The choice comes in when the women decide to have risky sex. When people make choices, they must accept certain ramifications of these choices. Sometimes, people don't want to accept the ramifications of their choices, and try to find an unethical means to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. (By the way, how can any woman with a conscience abort her baby?) f. Regarding Rights: No one is saying that babies should have "rights equal to or superior to a woman's". That would be absurd. Pro-life proponents are simply saying that babies have a right to life. That is all. A right to life. If anyone can tell me how a baby having a right to life in any way makes its "rights equal to or superior to a woman's", I would greatly appreciate being informed about this! g. Regarding Development: You imply that a fetus is not "a thinking, feeling, conscious human being." Current, valid science indicates that a fetus is not a senseless mass of tissue, as some people have believed in the past. According to Planned Parenthood, a fetus is "the organism that develops from the embryo at the end of eight weeks of pregnancy and receives nourishment through the placenta; the fetus continues to develop until the pregnancy ends." According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Tenth Edition, an organism is "an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being". In other words, Planned Parenthood admits that a fetus is an individual, and a living being! According to Dr. Ruth's Encyclopedia of Sex, "The beginning of the fetal period [is] arbitrarily designated by most embryologists to occur eight weeks after fertilization. At this time, the embryo is nearly one and one-half inches long. Few, if any, major new structures are formed thereafter; development during the fetal period of gestation consists of the maturation of structures formed during the embryonic period." In other words, the basic structure of the baby has already been formed! Planned Parenthood admits this. Now, remember, this is still within the first "trimester"! The baby has a small brain. The baby can feel pain. The baby can feel vibrations. The baby has vague vision and hearing. The baby has reactions which indicate a simple intelligence. Who knows whether a baby is conscious at this point? Admittedly, the baby is undeveloped enough at this point that its sensations and thoughts are not similar to adults'. However, the baby is a thinking, feeling human being, though admittedly undeveloped. h. Regarding Diminishment: For women to have the legal right to freely take the lives of their babies, whether on a whim, for their own selfish reasons, or for their own selfish comfort, "is arrogant and absurd". • 4. Being a mother is just one option for women. Many hard battles have been fought to win political and economic equality for women. These gains will not be worth much if reproductive choice is denied. To be able to choose a safe, legal abortion makes many other options possible. Otherwise an accident or a rape can end a woman's economic and personal freedom. 4. Being a mother is the most important purpose of women. a. Regarding Women's Freedom: Many are calling the 1990's the "Me Decade." One aspect of this is some women who consider only their own needs and desires, and disregard the needs and desires of others. This is most obvious when women are willing to kill their own babies (either born or unborn) to fulfill their own selfish desires. Every possible reason for abortion (other than serious health issues for the mother or baby) is a selfish one. Everyone, including men, women, and babies (born and unborn) should have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. b. Regarding Mothering: No task is as crucial as that of parenting. Being a mother is the most important purpose of a woman. Being a father is the most important purpose of a man. Mothering (and Fathering) means having children and caring for them, often sacrificing one's own desires in order to provide the needs and wants of the children. This is the true definition of "parent." Without sacrifice, love is meaningless. c. Regarding Choices: Women in Industrialized countries have many choices. d. Regarding Equality: The "political and economic equality for" men and women is not worth much if men and women do not share the responsibilities of parenting. In Conclusion: Wouldn't it make better sense to consider the option of adoption, rather than the option of abortion? Waiting lists are never ending for adoptable newborns. Instead of losing his or her life, the baby instead gets a chance to have a good life with a married couple who highly desire a child to love, raise, and, in other words, parent. • 5. Outlawing abortion is discriminatory. Anti-abortion laws discriminate against low-income women, who are driven to dangerous self-induced or back-alley abortions. That is all they can afford. But the rich can travel wherever necessary to obtain a safe abortion. 5. Legal abortion is discriminatory. a. Low income women have much support and many options. Often, the families of the mothers are willing to assist the mother. Many government programs are also designed to help low income women throughout all phases of bearing and raising children. Finally, adoption is an excellent choice for those women who don't have the financial strength to bear parenting. All expenses are paid, and more, for women who are willing to adopt out their newborn babies. b. Legal abortion discriminates against babies. Any law which allows the callous, cold blooded killing of a life must be considered as discriminatory (at the very least!). Even the cold blooded killing of animals is proscribed by law, yet some campaign for less restrictions on killing unborn babies! c. Legal abortion discriminates against fathers. • 6. Compulsory pregnancy laws are incompatible with a free society. If there is any matter which is personal and p...