A DEFENSE FOR THE UNBORN
By: Victor T. Stephens
"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only objective of good government."
~ Thomas Jefferson
"For you formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well." (Psalm 139:13-14)
Is it a transgression to flagrantly eradicate the life of another person? On the surface, such a question may seem absurd. "Of course it is!” any sane and moral person would say. But sadly, in January 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade made such an atrocity legal by reversing legislation against the criminal act of murdering unborn babies by way of abortion. The Supreme Court's blatant disregard for the lives of unborn children has attributed to the following alarming statistics:
1. Since being legalized, abortion has killed more than 58 million unborn babies in the United States.
2. On average, slightly more than one million unborn babies are murdered each year in America.
3. It is estimated that 725,000 abortions are performed yearly on unborn babies who are nine weeks or older. At this stage of pregnancy, the baby's heart, brain, stomach, kidneys, and liver is functioning. Furthermore, at this point in time, the baby can feel pain.
4. Abortion is the foremost cause of death in the United States, surpassing deaths caused by heart disease and cancer combined.
5. About 95% of abortions are performed as a means of birth control. One percent is performed for physical irregularities of the child; one percent for incest or rape, and three percent to prevent the death or serious injury to the health of the mother.
In order to justify their positions, many pro-choice advocates who support the Roe vs. Wade decision, argue that a fetus is not a person. In like fashion, this disturbing viewpoint echoes the moral connotations of the Dredd Scott decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1856 that regarded Blacks as non-persons. Obviously, those lacking moral and spiritual convictions believe they have the right to choose who has worth; contending that a person meet certain criteria before he / she is granted a "human being".
During the past 31 years, medical and scientific findings have substantiated that life does indeed begin at conception; a fact that the U.S. Supreme Court conveniently overlooks. There are currently "fetal homicide" laws that define a fertilized ovum, embryo, and fetus as a human person during any period of maturation from conception to birth. These laws make it a criminal offense to cause injury or death to an unborn child as a result of violent conduct by an offender. If an expecting woman is attacked and killed, the assailant will be charged with two murders -- that of the mother and child. I find it interesting and sinister, however, that "fetal homicide" laws do not apply to pro-choice feminist who deliberately kill their unborn babies.
Misleading Arguments about Abortion
Pro-Choice Argument: "It's my body...It's a woman's 'right' to choose!"
Rebuttal: A woman's body does not have two hearts, four lungs, two blood types, two heads, four eyes, four arms, four hands, four legs, etc. And what if she is carrying a male baby? Does she also have a penis? The truth is that the child growing within the woman is not her body, but a separate individual whose body belongs to God. How anyone can allege they have the "right" to kill an innocent baby is beyond rational reasoning. Let's for a moment accept the argument for a "right to choose because it's my body". Using the same rationale, does one have the "right to choose" drug use, alcohol abuse, suicide, and / or engage in prostitution (since it is your body)? Any society that permits the killing of innocent unborn children based on a woman's right to choose is practicing modern barbarism. The next section (methods of abortion) should unquestionably prove this point.
Pro-Choice Argument: "It is not a human being...it's just a fetus."
Rebuttal: The depersonalization of an unborn child is a vile excuse to rationalize the extermination of its life. In the same manner as a newborn, toddler, and teenager, a fetus is a human person that grows and develops its own personality and capabilities in the course of time. Thanks to modern technology, recent studies have provided conclusive evidence that a fetus possesses active brain waves and can react to stimuli. It has a beating heart, its own circulatory system, and blood type.
Pro-Choice Argument: "Since abortion is legal, it must be right."
Rebuttal: The United States Supreme Court has been wrong before. Recall the Dredd Scott case mentioned earlier (regarding slavery). What about the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that gave local governments the right to force property owners to sell their homes for the "benefit" of economic development? And what about the recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage? They were wrong then and they are wrong now. If the U.S. Supreme Court enacted a law that authorized rape or child abuse as legal, would that make them right? Of course not! When our court systems make immoral decisions, those of us with moral convictions must take a stand.
Pro-Choice Argument: "This is a private matter and the government shouldn't interfere."
Rebuttal: If a woman chooses to sell sexual favors, doesn't the government get involved? If a woman chooses to possess and use drugs, does not the government interfere? These are two examples of a host of private activities where the government intervenes. Now ... it has already been proven that human life begins at conception. According to our Declaration of Independence, every human has the God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And it is the government's responsibility to defend and protect those inalienable rights.
Neutral Argument: "I'm personally against abortion, but I would not intrude my morality on others."
Rebuttal: This rhetorical doublespeak is generally used by some politicians during their campaign run. It is a "safe" and convenient statement to gather the support of Pro-Lifers while simultaneously attempting to appease the Pro-Choice camp. Since the United States is supposedly "One Nation under God", a politician should have the courage to uphold his personal convictions as it relates to national moral responsibility. If a statesman asserts he "opposes abortion, but....", then what about other moral issues such as racism, rape, and robbery; or is abortion... the brutal killing of an innocent unborn child, exclusionary? I'll leave that question to your conscience.
Pro-Choice Argument: "Abortion should be legal for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape."
Rebuttal: In their attempt to gain consolation, the Pro-Choice crowd frequently references the issues of incest and rape to justify abortion. This is what led up to the infamous Roe v. Wade ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. While the court ruled in favor of "Jane Roe" aka Norma McCorvey (who no longer supports abortion rights), one percent of abortions are actually performed due to incest or rape, while ninety-five percent (95%) are performed as a convenient means of birth control. Now... without doubt, incest and rape are appalling offenses; and we should sympathize with those who have been violated. However, should the innocent pre-born child have to pay the brutal cost for someone else's brutal behavior? Again ... we will leave that question to your conscience.
Pro-Choice Argument: "Abortion is a woman's concern. Men should have no involvement."
Rebuttal: Such a comment by pro-choice women is rooted in hypocrisy and extreme self-centeredness that is designed to alienate men. In the Roe v. Wade case, the U.S. Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of legalizing abortion consisted exclusively of men. If men should "have no involvement" in abortion issues, then the decision ruled by the court should be invalid. In any case, it has already been proven by embryonic research that life begins at conception. Thus, another individual is involved in this issue. Secondly, a woman is incapable of impregnating herself. Every child has a mother and father. Should fathers, the God-appointed leaders of their children, have their parental rights and emotional needs dismissed? I think not! And it is time for men to take a stand and defend their unborn children and join the efforts of women who share the same cause.