Abortion Battle

Abortion Battle

Abortion is a huge issue in the U.S. Abortion was legalized in 1973. Since 1973, the rate of abortions has increased. I strongly believe that abortion is wrong, and that we should limit or decrease the rate of Abortion in America. Abortions give our young people and adults the okay to continue to make babies, knowing that they can't care for a baby in the present time in their life. They know that if they get pregnant that they can have an abortion. I believe that America need to tighten up on the welfare programs because these mothers are thinking that the government will take care of them for the rest of their lives. In this sense, mothers will feel and need to feel the pressure, and know to protect themselves.

There are a lot of birth control methods, no excuses. I also, believe that America need to tighten up on Abortions and make conditions for mothers, so that we can decrease the rate of Abortions. If the government shows these mothers that they will help them for a short period of time, they may begin to see the light and start taking responsibility and use protection or some form of birth control to prevent pregnancy. Now I know that there are people out there who may disagree with me. I understand some of the reasons why someone whom may disagree. Someone who oppose may say what about the mothers who are on drugs, or have been taken violated. I know drug babies have some complications and women who have been raped may but I am a firm believer God will take care of his own. We are countries that quote, "In God we trust," on our valuable things like money, but do not really trust in God. If we did, we would give life a chance. It is hard to say, but it is true, some things happen for a reason. These things that happen for reason may not feel good to us, but it may change our lives. The right thing to do to fit the opinion, and someone that oppose is to limit the abortion rate by getting mothers in more programs to avoid pregnancy, and tighten up on Abortion cases.

Most people would agree that unjustified and unexcused homicide is morally wrong, but many disagree about whether abortion is homicide. If abortion were homicide, then one would be bound in conscience to seek a justification, or at least an excuse, for homicide in every act of abortion. By contrast, if abortion were not homicide, but only the medical termination of a pregnancy, then an act of abortion would not have a fundamental moral significance; the practice would then be justifiable by less fundamental reasons. It follows that particular arguments for or against the morality of abortion are secondary to the question of whether abortion is homicide. Therefore a prior question to the issue of the morality of abortion is whether embryos and fetuses are possible victims of a homicide, or moral persons. Grisez's argument buttressed ontologically by Aristotle convincingly shows that to kill the fetus is to kill the baby, to kill the child, to kill the young adult, to kill the adult, and thus to kill the older person. For the full value of the person is in every stage of development. Or as Aristotle could say, "killing the potentiality certainly kills the actuality." In fact, a child is a child whether it's inside or outside the mother, whether it's one pound or ten pounds. Size doesn't determine humanity.

I don't think the people who head Planned Parenthood or the National Organization of Women or Emily's List are stupid at all; and they would never go on television or to a public forum and argue that a child is not a human being while it's still inside the mother because they know they would be totally humiliated and lose the debate with any knowledgeable and equally prepared opponent. They don't want to look like fools; but believe me, they know. Instead they brilliantly talk only about a woman's right to choose, thereby avoiding the real issue and lots of people buy into it; especially young people who don't have the experience to make independent judgments. It allows people to rationalize their actions.

Many years ago, when Life magazine published the picture of a child in peaceful repose inside its mother on the front cover of the magazine, it was a stunning revelation for me, and allot of other people; otherwise why would they have put it on the front cover? Today when a woman becomes pregnant, it's common to get an ultra sound of the baby to make sure there aren't any problems that need to be addressed, and to satisfy a natural, and perhaps pragmatic curiosity about what the baby's sex is. What do you suppose they're looking at? It doesn’t make any sense at all to say a baby inside its mother isn't human, but the minute it pokes its head out it is? How totally, totally, absurd! But if you still don't agree, ask your family doctor some very specific questions: At what point is it possible to hear a baby's heartbeat? When can you first measure brainwaves? How soon does a baby start to look like a person? If you don't get direct answers, if he's being evasive, try another doctor. If this seems like too much trouble and you don't want to do you're own research, I can tell you that 6 days after implantation in the uterus the person has developed so rapidly that his heart, brain, spinal column and nervous system are almost complete; after 8 days the person's heart has started to beat; and although still very small this individual has taken control of the pregnancy to try to assure it's survival - and the mother probably doesn't even know she is pregnant yet. Sometimes I have observant individuals challenge the statistics I personally state. That's good, because I know they're paying serious attention. The difference is due to the fact that as long as two weeks can go by from the moment of fertilization until the placenta has completely attached itself to the uterus, at which time the woman "becomes pregnant"; and that's often when I begin counting.

The idea that a baby is born at the time it miraculously pops out of a woman is an archaic notion superseded by modern science. I've included links to other related sites at the end of this document that you can go to for more information. Of course there's another argument, that a child isn't a child until it can survive outside the mother. This is equally absurd. Did you ever hear of parents bringing a baby home from the hospital, and it got up, walked to the refrigerator, and fixed itself a sandwich? In fact, the child will be totally dependent on its parents and other adults for its survival for several years. When you bring the baby home from the hospital, please don't set it down in its room and forget about it and come back to see how it's doing in a week.

Here are some other facts about how rapidly a child develops inside its mother, taken from the American Life League publications "The First Nine Months" and "What They Never Told You About the Facts of Life": "DAY 30 At one month old, the embryo is 10,000 times larger than the original fertilized egg-and developing rapidly." "DAY 35 Five fingers can be discerned...” Keep in mind that mom probably doesn't even know she's pregnant yet. "WEEK 6 the mother is about to miss her second period and has probably confirmed that she is pregnant." "WEEK 9 Fingerprints are already evident....” "MONTH 4 The umbilical cord has become an engineering marvel, transporting 300 quarts of fluid per day and completing a round-trip of fluids every 30 seconds." Note, though that the baby itself is completely separate from the mother, and not a part of her body in any way - it is connected by the umbilical cord, which in turn is attached to the placenta, which is the part attached to the mother's uterus. The baby always has a separate blood system, which may even be a different blood type from the mother. At delivery, the placenta, and most of the umbilical cord, is simply thrown away. The placenta transfers nutrients and waste - not blood. The baby produces its own blood, just like we do. Floating in the amniotic fluid, the baby is something like an astronaut doing a space walk - actually swimming around, until it becomes too cramped close to the delivery time. "....feel pain for the first time...When your mom was 7 weeks pregnant". "By the time your mother found out she was pregnant, you were: A miniature human with arms, legs and a heartbeat". "When did you start using your brain? Fetal electric brain waves have been traced as early as the sixth week." "...babies as young as 22 weeks after conception , weighing only 14 oz., have survived premature birth." you'll continue to develop, just like you did in the womb, until you reach the...age of approximately 23 years!" hardly just a mass of cells. The aforementioned publications can be had for the lofty price of .50 cents and .75 cents respectively. The solution that some propose to the divisive controversy over abortion is that the opposing parties in this dispute should simply "agree to disagree." This is presented as a reasonable option. It does not require that either side change its views, but simply agree to allow the different views, and the practices that flow from them. Sorry, but this is a proposal we in the pro-life movement can't accept. First of all, to ask us to "agree to disagree" about abortion is to ask us to change our position on it. Why, after all, do we disagree in the first place? When we oppose abortion, we disagree with the notion that it is even negotiable.

We do not only claim that we cannot practice it, but that nobody can practice it, precisely because it violates the most fundamental human right, the right to life. To "agree to disagree" means that we no longer see abortion for what it is -- a violation of a right so fundamental that disagreement cannot be allowed to tamper with it. To "agree to disagree" is to foster the notion that the baby is a baby only if the mother thinks it is that the child has value only if the mother says it does, and that we have responsibility only for those we choose to have responsibility for. Certainly, there are many disputes in our nation about which we can "agree to disagree." Various proposals, programs, and strategies can be debated as we try to figure out how best to secure people's rights. But these legitimate areas of disagreement relate to how to secure people's rights, whereas the abortion controversy is about whether to secure or even recognize those rights at all. We can agree to disagree whether certain government programs should be allowed, but not whether acts of violence should be allowed. "Agree to disagree" seems like a neutral posture to assume, but it neutralizes what can never be neutral: the right to life itself. Furthermore, the abortion dispute is not merely about conceptual disagreement. It's about justice. It's about violence, bloodshed, and victims who need to be defended. In the midst of a policy permitting 4000 babies a day to be killed, to "agree to disagree" means to cease to defend the absolute rights of the victim. We don't fight oppression by "agreeing to disagree" with the oppressor. It is precisely when the oppressor disagrees that we have to intervene to stop the violence. The fact that the oppressor does not recognize the victim as a person does not remove our obligation to the victim. In the face of injustice, we are not simply called to disagree with it, but to stop it. The proposal to "agree to disagree" presumes the issue is about people disagreeing over abortion, not about people being killed by abortion. The proposal shows how invisible the unborn victim remains. It is a false solution indeed.

Done by YPFC Ministries

What’s your view? We’d like to know