Please Note
The term “abortion” as used within this article refers only to the procedure. It does not refer to the failure of a child to fully develop due to natural circumstances.
From the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg and syngamy (the union of the mother and father’s DNA) occurs, the single cell that results, called a zygote, becomes human in the genetic sense. The moment the zygote implants itself within the uterine wall, it begins development into a human in the physical sense. Barring unfortunate circumstances, the zygote will ideally be born in nine months to live life as a human in every sense: genetically, physically, socially, and uniquely as a being. Without the zygote, there is no human being. Therefore, I posit that a human is “born” when the zygote is formed, i.e. when the two different halves of DNA from the mother and father come together to form a new, genetically unique individual.
This genetically unique individual, by virtue of being unique and individual, has the potential to become an important, contributing member of our species as all human beings possess such potential. Whether or not a human being achieves their fullest potential, as determined by the interactions between genetics and external factors such as socioeconomic standing, rests in the hands of that individual for so long as they live. This potential, however, cannot be determined quantitatively or qualitatively, and it certainly cannot be accurately predicted at birth; all that can be said for certain is that all individual potential is lost upon death.
All cultures worldwide have taboos against murder, or the forceful taking of a life without provocation. The murder of a person deprives that person of life and their potential, which is a direct violation of the most basic human right; abortion is therefore unjust. By the same token, aborting a child at any stage of development, given that the child would have developed successfully into a newborn without placing the mother at irrevocable medical risk, is tantamount to murder as it robs the child of their life and potential. Abortions of convenience are therefore an injustice of the greatest sort as, not only is one depriving another being of life and potential, one is doing so to a being that is utterly helpless.
Perhaps one could argue that murder requires the murdered to be in possession of a will to live, and that fetuses possess no such will of their own. I would argue that fetuses do, in fact, possess a will to live, else they would cease to develop and be reabsorbed by the mother. Such failures to develop do naturally occur, with vanishing twin syndrome perhaps the most well-known and publicized incidence of such.
There is also the matter of how the fetus does not, itself, desire to be killed. At every stage of development, from fertilization to syngamy to zygote and onwards, the unborn child struggles to survive long enough to come to term and be born. While perhaps this is not a will in the common sense of the term, the fact remains that the unborn child, at all stages of development, is actively working to survive using all the means available at its disposal. As a result, an unborn child will attempt to survive an abortion, which results either in a failed abortion or a forced termination of the child's life against its best efforts, i.e. murder.
Abortion is murder; all justifications for abortion rely upon dehumanizing the unborn child, else hinge upon satisfying the selfishness of the mother.
"Selfishness of the mother?" you ask, quite possibly outraged. "Whatever do you mean by that?"
The fact of the matter is that all unwanted pregnancies, with the exception of those resulting from rape, are preventible and are the result of carelessness on the woman's part. Contraceptives are readily available, affordable, and reliable, allowing women to conveniently control their fertility. Condoms, which are also readily available for both sexes, act as a physical barrier to conception. In addition, it takes two to tango, and for consensual sex to take place, the woman must consent. While no contraceptive method, with the exception of abstinence, is fail-proof, the failure rates of modern contraceptives are extremely small and quickly approach zero when used in conjunction with other methods of contraception.
In short, unless all available means of contraception have been employed to no avail, there is absolutely no excuse for unwanted pregnancies resulting from consensual sex.
With that said, there is neither a reasonable reason nor a rational rationalization for a woman to suffer an unwanted pregnancy. Why should a woman carry to term a child she does not want? Pregnancy is quite hard on the mother's body, wreaking havoc upon her metabolism and hormonal balance, not to speak of the structural changes and strains carrying around an extra ten pounds inflicts upon a woman's spine. Why should a woman be forced to bear the consequences of a quick fling?
She need not, if she is sterilized.
At this point, you are likely screaming in rage at your screen, else staring in dumb disbelief at the above statement. Ah, but if you would take but a mere moment to explore the logic behind that statement, I think you will find it to be an entirely reasonable proposition, for you see, such women have no desire to reproduce in the first place, and even if they were to conceive children, these women would kill those children. Now, the beauty of sterilization is that it results in an inability to conceive children, which in turn results in the elimination of unwanted pregnancies, which in turn ultimately results in the elimination of abortions of convenience. In addition, there are temporary forms of sterilization available so that, if in the future the woman wishes to have children, it would be possible for her to do so without having to rely upon adoption.
"But what about a woman's right to reproduction?!" you are likely wondering, else raging. "Sterilization is a violation of that right!" Perhaps. However, consider this: when a woman aborts a child, she is depriving that child of life. Without life, nothing is capable of reproduction as all things capable of reproduction must be alive to reproduce. Therefore, the right to life trumps the right to reproduce, and, by extension, sterilization, whether it is forced or not, is a far lesser evil to abortions of convenience. After all, death is always permanent; sterilization, however, is not.
The fact of the matter is that all abortions of convenience are the direct result of selfishness. One of the most common justifications for such an abortion is that it would interfere with and/or interrupt the mother's life. Having a child is inconvenient for them, so rather than bring the child to term and place it up for adoption, they choose to abort it instead.
I simply must ask: since when has (in)convenience been a valid justification for depriving another human being of life? Since when has the deprivation of another's life purely to serve one's own interests been considered anything less than murder?
From what history has shown us, such things only occur when and where dehumanization is actively employed, and in recent history, nothing has been more actively dehumanized in the industrialized spheres of influence than unborn children.
Now, this is not to say that all instances of abortion are preventible or the result of selfishness. There are some instances where pregnancies go wrong and result in valid medical reasons, often involving the lingering, painful death of the mother, that render medical abortions necessary. However, this is the only instance in which abortions are morally justifiable.
Yes, this does mean that I do not condone abortions that are reactions to rape. While it's a given that rape is a traumatizing, potentially life-destroying experience and that conceptions resulting from rape are wholly involuntary and understandably unwanted, the fact remains that a child has been conceived and is as deserving of life as any other unborn child. The manner of conception is irrelevant; the child had no choice in how it was conceived, and, given the choice, I am certain the child would choose another manner as no one would want to be a child born of rape. In addition, the woman need not raise the child and always has the option of putting the child up for adoption.
Abortions in reaction to rape, although understandable, are no less selfish than abortions of convenience. They hinge upon the mentality that "I cannot deal with the constant reminder of my rape." Although it is indisputable that the pregnancy would act as a constant reminder of the rape, the fact remains that, should a woman go through with an abortion under such circumstances, they will have killed a child whose only "crime" was to be conceived under less-than-ideal circumstances.
Before one considers or condones abortions in reaction to rape, one should consider the cost of such: is the expected sense of relief truly worth the death of a child, particularly your own child? If so, then perhaps an abortion is justified, but how can you know for sure until after the abortion? And how can you know for sure that you will not regret your decision?
Consider that death is truly permanent, and until we find a way to conveniently alter past events to suit our fancies, there is absolutely no way of reversing death. Consider then that bringing the child to term and placing it up for adoption means that child will get a chance to live a full and happy life, and that, if you should ever change your mind about wanting to be a part of that child's life, you will have the chance to get to know them. Consider that that child, your child, could be the next genius in the vein of Galileo, Newton, Einstein...
Consider and decide if you can truly destroy that possibility.
Gender:
Points: 1656
Reviews: 8