My Pro-Life Argument. No exceptions, no exclusions.

Many people believe me to be passionate about a lot of issues. Truly, this is the only one that really deserves the title. I believe that abortion is murder. Period. How could you not be passionate with a position like that?

A coworker of mine wanted to hear my reasons for being pro-life, so I wrote her the following paper. I figured I might as well post it for the rest of the world.

"I’m going to lay out the Abortion Argument as best I can, and give you my reasons for being pro-Life. First, some definitions:

What is an abortion? Webster’s defines it as: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” It also states: “spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare MISCARRIAGE” So, all miscarriages are abortions. Not all abortions are miscarriages. In the political sense, the term “abortion” is generally applied only to non-natural, intentional terminations of pregnancy. This is the definition I will be using.

What is pregnant? “Containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body”. Note: No exclusions are given based on the stage of pregnancy. If you are gestating a human that is yet unborn, you are pregnant. Thus, you are pregnant from conception to birth.

What is infanticide? Webster’s says it is simply “the killing of an infant.”

What is an infant? “A child in the first period of life”.

What is murder? “To kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice”. Obviously, if the law itself is in question, then we must disregard it (to prevent circular reasoning) and cut straight the latter half.

The definition of murder gives no leeway as to the age or position of person (though the unlawful clause excludes criminals). Therefore, if it is alive, human, and innocent, to kill it is murder, which is a universally accepted wrong. Since all infanticides are murder, and murder=wrong, infanticide must therefore also be wrong.

There are many different forms of abortion, depending on what stage the pregnancy is in when terminated. You can find a listing of many options at this site. They range from drugs to induce delivery early on, to surgical options, including sucking the fetus out. Another form of abortion, rarely performed, is the infamous partial birth abortion. This can be done during the third trimester, though it is more often done in the second. Here they induce labor and deliver the fetus until only the head remains in the womb. Scissors are then inserted to pierce the skull. The skull and tissue is then collapsed and it is then delivered the rest of the way and disposed of.

They all have one thing in common: They end the pregnancy of the mother, through the destruction of the fetus. Is this infanticide? Since the only qualification for murder is “life and humanity”, which in this case go hand in hand, the only real question is: When does life begin? After all, if something is not alive, then there is no moral value and the destruction of such a thing cannot be wrong.

There are very few who would support any sort of abortion post-birth. Once outside the womb, all children are considered human. But what about before that? To answer, we turn to science.

This site says: “A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Empirically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if it’s human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.

Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, and four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, however, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it. Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime.”

I’m not sure that I can be any more profound or eloquent than the experts, so I will leave their argument to speak for itself.

Moving on, common arguments for the pro-Choice stance.

1: It is a woman’s right what she does with her own body.

Yes, undeniably, it is her right. This argument makes the assumption, however, that the infant is simply another organ attached to the mother with nothing special to distinguish it. Yet, there are many differences. First, this “organ” very quickly has organs of its own. In fact, within the first month, the little ‘organ’ has a brain of its own which directs a heart of its own to beat to its own rhythm. Show me the kidney that can do that, and I will recant my position!

Also, a liver, stomach, or kidney will never, ever be anything else other than a liver, stomach, or kidney. They have one specific purpose which they fulfill without any other reason for being, and they will remain in the body indefinitely. The child, by contrast, is in the womb only temporarily and will eventually be birthed.

Finally, I firmly support a woman’s choice. That choice happened when she chose to have sex. The purpose of sex is to procreate. If a baby is conceived, that was what was supposed to happen. We do not murder out of convenience. (Note: Rape will be dealt with later.)

2: If abortion is murder, then so are periods and masturbation.

Again, the difference here is potential. An egg, on its own, will never be anything but an egg. A sperm, on its own, will never change. Fertilize the egg, however, and barring anything unfortunate, the new cell will divide and reproduce a brand new human.

3: It can’t be human before “x” day because it is not viable outside the womb. (Another variation of this argument claims that since the child is wholly dependent on the mother for survival, it is a parasite and not a human.)

This argument states basically that since the fetus cannot survive on its own, it is not human. In that case, abortions should be allowed at least up until age 2, and possibly much later. A newborn child, fresh out of the womb, will die if not cared for. A toddler is unable to find food and fend for itself in the world. According to this argument, we should be allowed to slay said children if they become inconvenient.

Likewise, this argument also lumps together anyone on life support (they cannot survive without it. They aren’t independently ‘viable’), including those who artificial hearts.

Obviously, viability cannot be used as a yardstick for life. If this were so, Aubrey, Alexis, and millions of others would be candidates for abortion.

4: I don’t agree with abortion personally, but I can’t dictate that to someone else.

Abortion is only wrong if it is the intentional slaying of a human. As outlined above, if the thing is not alive then there is no reason to be against it. If it is alive and human, and it is not guilty of some crime, then destroying it intentionally is murder. It is either A, or B. Wrong, or not. There is no middle ground allowed in this logical argument.

Thus, this argument says “I believe abortion is the intentional slaying of a defenseless child, but I can’t tell someone else they can’t do it.” This is obviously insanity.

5: What about when the mother’s life is in danger or the child will be born with some sort of defect?

First: Who defines defect? Today a defect is a horrible disease. Tomorrow? Missing a hand, a leg? Brown hair as opposed to blonde?

Second: Tests are not completely accurate in this regard. For example, my wife’s family’s youngest daughter, Kara, was supposed to be born with several deadly diseases and defects. She was going to die instantly, and if she somehow survived, her entire life would be full of pain. Today she is a healthy and very intelligent 6 year old girl.

Third: From EPM.org: “While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother.”

Last: Even if you allow that this circumstance could happen, ask yourself this: You are walking across a road, and next to you is a small child. Suddenly, you see a bus bearing down on the both of you. You only have time to jump out of the way yourself, or push the child to safety. Only one of you can survive. Who do you pick? The answer in a moral sense is obvious: You save the child. The answer is even more obvious if this child is your own.

The last question is the most controversial.

5: Abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

The argument contends that because the mother did not choose to have the child, she should not be forced to carry it to term. The pregnancy is seen as a punishment on the victim.

Rape is a very traumatic and tragic event. Sometimes, a child will be conceived out of this forced union. No one would wish further suffering on someone who had to go through something like this. If you choose to have an abortion, however, all you are doing is committing a crime yourself. In your hurt and distress, you are choosing to slay a completely innocent child whose only crime is being conceived. The child cannot be held responsible for who its parents were. Your right to choose was forcibly taken away, but if you abort, you are committing an even worse crime upon the child.

Perhaps the mother does not think she can raise the child because of where he came from. The truth is, though, that she doesn’t have to! There are literally thousands of parents who are waiting in line to be blessed with this baby. They will pay for every penny of expense, and you never even have to lay eyes upon the child if you do not wish to.

Rape is a crime. So is murder. As horrible as the crime committed upon the mother was, it does not make committing an even worse one upon another innocent excusable.

[Here I took out a very personal story related to this issue. It is relevant, but not appropriate to post to the world. If you want to know it, ask and you may receive.]

I’m sure you can tell that this is a very important issue to me. Of all the people on Earth, children are the ones most deserving of our care and protection. It is one of the greatest tragedies that our generation is seeing millions upon millions being murdered every year. They cannot speak for themselves. We must speak for them. I hope this helps.

Jordan"