If the reader has spent any substantial amount of time online, especially on social media, they most likely would have come across the topic of abortion as they call it. I am writing against this eccentric act of evil they claim to be healthcare.
As a free-thinking moralistic people, we can come to conclusions on what is right and wrong, viz. murder, rape, theft, etc. May I submit that we are lacking in some departments that are substantially more important than others, viz. the protection of the most vulnerable.
How can we condemn someone as violating human rights by waging war but simultaneously terminate pregnancies for petty reasons, like lack of needed income or possibility of disabilities. We are failing to make distinctions between rights, why does an underdeveloped human have less of a right to life than a toddler? Does a toddler have less of a right to life than an adolescent? Abortion is a clear and blatant violation of the natural rights that this underdeveloped human is conceived with; for as soon as conception takes place and another living being is created, that has the same genetic make-up as any other human, it is given the natural rights to life and health.
One may argue that the mother's life is being threatened by the pregnancy. It would be logical and rational to assume that if the life and health of the mother is directly and immediately threatened by the continuation of the pregnancy that an abortion would be a viable option to save the life of the mother. Although I am not advocating for abortion, I believe that, in the case of a medical emergency, abortion should be a legal option to protect the mother. I do believe that in any other case, like lack of income, possibilities of disabilities, and inconvenience on any other grounds, should be a crime comparable to 1st degree murder as tried when terminating the life of any other class of individual.
Now, some may say that abortion is a mother's right, I disagree passionately. It is not anyone's right to violate the natural rights of life and health of any individual, no matter how vulnerable they are. In fact, it is commonly accepted, when speaking about other groups and individuals, that violating another's rights is unjust and criminal. Why then, do we not consider the natural rights of the unborn? The unborn child is the most vulnerable out of any other group or individual that exists, therefore we must protect them at all costs and place them at the pedestal of our priorities. These unborn humans, who bear the same genetic make-up as any other human, are our future, they are the next generations of the world; they must be kept safe and anyone who wishes to harm them should be held accountable.
In conclusion, I advocate for the protection of unborn humans and the abolition of abortion for anything other than medical emergencies. I wish to bring awareness to the fact that it is unjust for mothers to infringe on the rights of their unborn children, and I encourage others to help stop this homicidal act that is sadly legal in the United States, where I am writing from.
I've said many times before that all “pro-choice” arguments depend upon the dehumanization of preborn children, because if one acknowledges that a preborn child is a human being instead of a “cluster of cells”, that suddenly causes the act of intentionally killing one to be seen in a completely different light.
(What gives someone the “right” to kill another human being?)
The underlying problem is that it isn't being treated as though it's actually about what's right or wrong, but merely what is convenient for those of us who (thankfully) weren't aborted when we were just “clusters of cells” ourselves, which we all obviously once were.
(All pro-choice people can only express their views because they themselves weren't victims of abortion.)
Legally speaking, religious arguments are irrelevant, and overly scientific arguments (such as saying a baby can or can't feel pain or this of that) are also somewhat irrelevant IMO. The real problem here is cause and effect. That is, if my mom and dad had decided to abort my little sister (which they almost did BTW) 27 years ago, she wouldn't exist RN, and if Mom had given birth to her but then murdered her when she was 1 week old, the result would more or less be the same: she wouldn't exist.
(The cause might be quite different, but the effect is more or less the same.)
Lastly, while it is appalling to me to hear about so many innocent lives being lost in Gaza and Ukraine RN, I'd like to point out here (like I did in my own pro-life blog) that upwards of 600,000 abortions occur here in the US every year, which even puts the horrific death tolls from those 2 aforementioned conflicts to shame. (Anyone against unnecessary wars, the death penalty, or senseless gun violence should be against abortion as well, as it kills far more people than any of those.)
Wesley388
10 Jun 2024 18:04
In reply to Draconid_Jo
Upwards of 600,000?! That is nearly more than the entire American Civil war, the deadliest conflict in American history.
Draconid_Jo
12 Jun 2024 14:11
In reply to Wesley388
You see what I'm saying?
The debate around the death penalty tends to revolve around whether or not there is such a thing as a “humane” way of killing someone, rather than focusing on whether or not the victim suffers too much pain as they are being killed, but abortion is rarely ever looked at that way.
(Is there such a thing as a “humane” way of killing someone who is literally completely innocent?)
The numbers are even worse on a global scale (think about the forced abortions that happen in certain countries), and the only way that a genocide of that scale being perpetrated against children can take place is by our collective denial of it and the dehumanization of the victims. If that sounds familiar, then it should because that is EXACTLY what has been done during the worst genocides throughout human history, including the Holocaust and the Holodomor.
(And all arguments against it being a genocide parallel those of the defenders and deniers of those past genocides.)
BTW, although it's an outdated number, upwards of 63,000,000 children have been aborted here in the US since Roe V Wade became law. By comparison, the combined death toll of WWII (the deadliest war in recorded history) across ALL SIDES is around 70,000,000.
(IDK if that number includes the Holocaust or not, but it emphasizes my point rather well regardless.)
I’m going to stay neutral in this post but do feel the need to clarify scope of “abortion” for any debate that will follow in the comments so that people aren’t yelling past each other:
* The term “abortion” specifically refers to induced abortions, which are purposeful interventions on the pregnancy. A spontaneous abortion (i.e. a miscarriage) is natural demise.
* According to the CDC and state laws, the pregnancy must be on-going and intrauterine to be in scope. That excludes treatments for miscarriage, molar pregnancies, ectopic pregnancies, and treatments for pregnant women that result in unintended fetal demise. The scope does include rape/incest, lethal fetal abnormalities, and impending miscarriages. Laws only apply post-implantation, but there is a gray area concerning in-vitro fertilization.
I can provide additional clarity to help with discussions, if needed.
Wesley388
03 Jun 2024 01:56
In reply to HullBreach