Refresh Page

18 July 2024

 

The Right To Abortion

With wonderment, I note that several Federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Army Presentation Lists Pro-Life Organizations as Terrorist Groups - LifeNews.com) have labeled pro-lifers as “terrorists.” One wonders what logic sustains such a conclusion?

I also note that the government has jailed persons for their activity on behalf of unborn children. More troubling is the recent decision by political leaders to weaken pro-life values to secure votes. One wonders what moral reasoning justifies using the life of an enwombed child as a political pawn?

Let us be clear about certain crucial truths:

• Abortion is, first and foremost, a moral issue, an issue of life-and-death;


• Unfortunately for millions of unborn children, abortion is vastly politicized but, above all else, it is a moral issue.


• Because it has been so politicized, the moral foundations of abortion have been - and continue to be - deliberately and profoundly obscured.


• Pro-choice advocates deny the humanity of the enwombed child and, thus, stand against the laws of God and Nature;


• No matter how it is portrayed by its defenders, abortion directly and intentionally kills an innocent human being.


• These … for starters…

Let’s face facts:

• Science tells us every enwombed child (“fetus” in pro-choice terms) is an independent living human being from the instant of his/her conception.


• At conception, each child is instantly endowed with a unique life force of DNA (as you and I were).


• With proper nourishment (which we all require) the enwombed child can live an independent life on his/her own outside mother’s womb.


• Let me repeat: Human biology and genetics reveal that each enwombed child (not “fetus”) is an independent individual, able to grow and thrive outside the womb of her/his mother.


• Therefore, Truth demands that the pro-choice slogan "My Body, My Choice" should be, "My Baby's Body, So My Baby Shall Live!"

The pro-choice slogan is scientifically wrong and fatally flawed. The child in his/her mother’s womb is a living, growing human being, an innocent, dependent person who should never be subject to arbitrary death.

The “Right” To Choose What ?

When pro-choice advocates claim women have a "right" to be rid of their own child, what are they choosing? What are the consequences of such choice? It is not a neutral choice. The child’s life – the life of a human being - is at stake.

The Guttmacher Institute recently revealed that 63% of abortions in America during 2023 were “medication abortions,” a sanitized way of saying these abortions were a result of the drug Mifepristone. But facts compel us to realize that no matter how -or when - an abortion is achieved (by surgical or chemical means), the intent and the outcome is to destroy a living, defenseless human being.

Pro-choice rhetoric has the selective ring of Macha-nobility, of courageous women achieving freedom from oppressive religious zealotry. But the truth (harsh as it may sound to some) is that women who choose abortion choose life for themselves and death for their babies. And, most often, aborting a child is done for the convenience of the mother.

Pro-choice people militantly contend that abortion is a “human right” (as if humanity controls Creation) or that abortion is necessary for the health of the mother (an egregious distortion). Read these comments for examples: “Critical Abortion Theory” - Breakpoint

Pro-choice arguments dismiss God’s power over life and death, and celebrate the brutal death of a human being. They call this a “right?” One wonders where this grim “right” originates?

Choice Involves Accountability

The scientific evidence presents unavoidable corollaries:

• Most women have a choice; conception is most often not forced upon them. It results from their own behavior, and behavior has (as we know) consequences.


• Consequences of human behavior come with responsibility and accountability. That’s what makes it human.


• To avoid accountability, pro-choice arguments employ the hygienic, pseudo-heroic patois of women’s liberation, framed as a hard-won “right” which courageous women wrestled from the control of Christian white males.


• In fact, pro-choice arguments are benignly-phrased evasions of the fact that a woman chooses to kill her innocent child who depends on her in every way imaginable.


• The enwombed baby is a person entrusted to his/her mother by God and Nature.


• Nothing in Creation rivals the dependency, intimacy and nurturance between the enwombed baby and his/her mother.

It is undeniable: The enwombed child is a unique individual with every right to live. The slogan, “My Body, My Choice” is an inhumane shibboleth.

Feelings Eclipse Facts

Objections arise. Some stem from vincible ignorance, others from deliberate rejection of Truth.

One recurring objection asks: “What about rape? Why should a child of rape be allowed to see the light of day? The woman did not consent. The child is merely a dreadful reminder of a horrible experience.”

Rape is a reprehensible outrage. But an innocent life is involved, so one must ask if the enwombed child should also become a victim? Should this child die because of another’s cruelty? What’s the point? What does abortion prove?

A further objection says that giving birth may be difficult for a woman who is emotionally unready to be a mother, or for a student or, perhaps, for a career woman unwilling to face the sacrifices of motherhood.

But tell me: who is ever truly prepared to face challenges we are called upon to face, even challenges we create for ourselves? Is fear of one’s inadequacy or fear of the unknown sufficient reason to destroy an innocent life? More to the point, how can we possibly justify taking innocent life to relieve ourselves of our burdens, to avoid responsibilities - or be less inconvenienced?

The Challenge Of Hard Truth

What is missing in these discussions is acknowledgment that a "fetus" is, in fact, a real human being, a real person, a maturing child of God. Pro-choice advocates deny the personhood of the enwombed child by de-personalizing the words and images they use. For example, they define the “fetus” as an invasive, parasitical blob of cells to be discarded for the “health of the mother.” An enwombed child becomes a danger to the “health of the mother,” as if pregnancy were a disease.

The truth, once again, is that each “fetus” is instantly endowed at conception with his/her own unique DNA, i.e., the genetic code of a lifetime. That child is a human being to be loved and cherished; a distinct person, entitled to be born and to live his/her life.

Is sacrifice involved? Of course! The birth of every child creates an immediate need for personal sacrifice by her/his father and mother. Is it not obvious that life always involves sacrifice, which is the crux of family life and the font of all morality.

Is challenge involved? Of course! Ongoing challenges to fathers and mothers are constant: to raise and educate and love that child; to give that child examples of goodness and moral stability which define every mature adult; to impart to that child a desire for life-long learning and common sense.

But abortion proceeds with widespread approval, so … what can one say about a nation which tolerates - even celebrates - killing its children as a “human right”?

Abortion elicits sadness in those who have (with wonder and gratitude) gladly paid the price of giving life; those who sustain the child through years of development; those who gladly accept the oft-harrowing challenges; those who, at last, see the child blossom beyond all fears and doubts to which we humans are heir; those who ask God to bless every woman and protect every child to whom she lovingly and courageously gives life.