The ight House

Editorials and Commentaries | Random Thoughts | True Stories | Other Writers

Abortion

Abortion is one of the most controversial topics of modern times. It’s debate poses questions of our morality, religious convictions, and allegiance to our constitution. One reason the debate never seems to resolve anything is because often the two opposing sides are not comparing apples with apples. For example; if one side is arguing from a perspective based upon his religious convictions and the other is arguing from a perspective based upon his understanding and beliefs of the U.S. Constitution, they are not even in the same debate. Many things can be constitutional and yet not be in accordance with the word of God. To further compound the complexity of this issue, depending on which position a person takes, “pro choice” or “pro life”, each component is defending a different principle. The pro choice opponent is defending the rights of the mother while the pro life opponent is defending the rights of the fetus. The point being that it is futile to debate an issue where the opponents are not arguing the same aspect of that issue.

The core of the debate
People on both sides of this issue commonly agree that murder is wrong. Even the people who take the “pro choice” stand on the issue generally believe that murder is not an acceptable means of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. This is a very important fact since many people believe that “pro choice” advocates condone murder as a means of birth control, while in reality they do not believe abortion is murder at all. This is supported by the fact that many “pro choice” advocates only support the right of the mother to have an abortion up to a certain stage of the pregnancy. This is the debate within the debate but it is still not the core of the issue. many pro choice advocates do not believe that abortion is an act of murder because they do not believe a life is being taken, while the pro life advocates argue that life begins at conception and therefore a life is being taken. This leads to the final argument which is the core of the issue. That argument is the disagreement of when life actually begins.

As if the abortion topic is not complicated enough with all it’s sub-issues, it’s complexity increases still further even at the core. This is because many times the opposing sides can not agree upon the definition of “life”, or perhaps even more significant, which definition of “life” is applicable to this subject. There seems to be two classifications for defining life in this issue; one is the biological definition and the other is the ethical definition.

In 1981 the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings to discuss the position of where biological life begins. An overwhelming majority of the experts questioned, testified that life begins at conception or implantation. Pro-abortionist were invited to disprove the experts conclusions but were unable to produce any witness who would testify to the contrary. The basis for the expert’s testimony is the scientifically proven manifestation which occurs at conception in which the haploid sex cells (sperm and egg) merge to form a unique biological entity which possesses a human genotype separate from the mother and has it’s own independent genetic blueprint. This proven fact not only proves that biological life begins at conception but also discredits a popular pro-choice position that a fetus in it’s earliest stages is an extension of the mother’s body rather than an independent human life. 1

The ethical question of when life begins asks the question of when does biological life become a person. Pro-choice advocates prefer to address this question because it ha no scientific basis and therefore is more open to deliberation. Many Pro-abortionist believe the question of when biological life becomes a person is the more applicable question to the abortion issue. After all, a Dandelion is a form of life, yet we think nothing of plucking it from the earth. Their rational seems to be that so long as the life form is extracted before it becomes a person, it is no more wrong than removing an unwanted weed from a garden. They apparently believe that destroying a life is only under if the life has already become a person. They also apparently believe that the biological life form created at conception is not considered a person until sometime after conception. The opinion of the pro-abortionist who hold to this concept of exactly when a biological life becomes a living person is unclear. In my research, I could not find evidence of any firm agreement as to the particular stage of fetus development they perceive the biological life form becomes a living person. I therefore conclude the opinion of when this transformation occurs is wide spread among the supporters of this life/person theory.

Yet another theory held by the pro-abortionist is that in the early stages of fetal development, the fetus is an extension of the mother vice rather than an entity of it’s own. Medical science however, contradicts this belief through the medium of at least two fundamental principles;

1. As previously stated, the proven manifestation which occurs at conception in which the haploid sex cells (sperm and egg) merge to form a unique biological entity which possesses a human genotype separate from the mother and has its own independent genetic blueprint.
   
2. When the blastocyst implants itself in the womb, it must suppress the mother’s immune reaction to avoid immunological rejection by the mother. Obviously the mother’s own body recognizes it as a separate organism.1

My stand on the issue
Finally, we come to the essence of this editorial “My personal opinion”. Be warned, if you are a pro-abortionist and are in poor health you should not read further because if you do, your blood pressure will surely rise.

My position is “PRO-LIFE”. I base my position on my own sense of logic, decency and on the word of God. I reviewed a vast amount of material in my research on this issue. I did not expect my views to be altered by anything I examined, but I like to have some depth of understanding on any topic of which I write. My expectations were not only met, but after studying the issue my pro-life views are stronger than ever. I find that the

As stated, one of the elements on which I base my opinion is the word of God. It should be noted that “abortion” is not mentioned in the Bible. Some pro-abortionist interpret this as a justification for their philosophy, which I believe is absurd. They are playing with specific words, ignoring as a whole the sanctification the Bible places on human life. “Vehicular homicide” is not mentioned in the bible either, but I know from it’s teachings that it is wrong. I believe, “Thou shalt not kill” covers all unprovoked, voluntary, personal taking of human life. While the bible does not directly comment on abortion, there are numerous passages in which it expresses the sacredness God places on human life, both inside and outside the womb.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: He shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.
Ex 21:22-23

Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews. Thou hast granted me life and favor, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit.
Job 10:10-12

The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Job 33:4

Then the word of the Lord came unto me saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jer 1:4-5

Even if we ignore the obvious connotation of these biblical verses that life exist in the womb, that is sanctified by God, and that it is considered to be human long before the physical birth, there is no denying that the miracle of birth is the design and work of God. When a child is conceived through sexual intercourse, God’s plan of creating life is activated. Regardless of whether or not life exist at that moment or at what point life becomes a person, the fact remains that if the pregnancy is carried to full term in accordance with God’s will, it will undisputedly become a living human being. It stands to reason therefore that abortion is a defying, intentional, interference with God’s plan. It is no less than a veto of God.

If a penny saved is a penny earned, if an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, that same logic dictates that a life prevented is a life taken.

The problem with using the bible as a foundation for determining the moral justification of any subject is that many people do not regard the Bible with any reverence for establishing morality. Unfortunately to these people everything that I have written thus far regarding my opinion and it’s foundation will be perceived without merit. It would come as no surprise to me that the majority of people who support abortion are those without religious convictions. Those who claim to have religious convictions yet support abortion are examples of either ignorance, or hypocrisy.

To those who are abstinent of God’s convictions, I can only try to appeal to their sense of morality which is very difficult given that their morals are not based on a solid foundation. Regardless of a person’s religious convictions or whether they believe abortion is murder, there is one common thing we can all agree on, “abortion prevents birth and therefore it undeniably prevents life.” Well if we can all agree on that point, all that would be left is to convince the pro-abortionist that preventing life is equal to taking life. This is nearly impossible however, because without a solid foundation to derive the understanding of right from wrong, a person will always base their morals upon whatever is convenient to them. You really can not convince a person that their views have flaws or even debate such an issue with someone who does not share a common standard of morality.

Pro-abortionist do pose some tough questions such as, “What about a case of rape?” Is it fair to ask a woman to bare the child of her rapist? Is it really an act of compassion to bring an unwanted child into the world? What about birth defects? Is it necessarily an act of kindness to allow the birth of a child who will be severely handicapped and not able to live an independent and productive life?

Well, they might be tough questions and difficult concepts to deal with but they are not so tough that I would condone abortion as a solution. First let’s look at a case of rape. Rape is indeed a hideous and cruel crime and I understand that the victim of a rape undergoes psychological trauma most of us can not even begin to understand. However aborting the child conceived from a rape will not undo the rape and it will not provide any relief of the psychological trauma (some may disagree). Aborting a child because it was conceived from rape only serves to add an extra victim to the tragedy. The unborn child is innocent and it is unjust that he/she should have to pay with their life for something of which they had no part of. I believe the woman who aborts her child conceived from a rape actually may be adding to her psychological distress as gilt may eventually set in. God is able to bring forth a wonderful and glorious gift from a tragedy.

The argument that it is an act of unkindness to bring an unwanted child into the world is weak and unfounded. Many couples who for various reasons are not able to have children and would love to adopt a child. The unkindness would be to keep an unwanted child, but he/she has the right to be born and the right to be raised and cared for by loving parents.

The argument that is cruel to permit a child with birth defects to be born is ludicrous. I’ll wager that if you ask most any handicapped person if they wish they had never been born, they would say, “Of course not!” Many handicapped people lead very productive and full lives. It is very arrogant for anyone to presume the value of a life based on physical or mental handicaps.

Finally there is the argument that a woman’s right to choose should be placed above all other considerations. I disagree. There is a point where I believe the woman does have the right to choose. She has the right to choose to keep her skirt down, her pants up and her legs closed. She has the right to say no to sexual passes. She has the right to control her sexual desires. She has the right to use a contraceptive is she chooses to indulge her desires. We all have sexual desires and I understand how the heat of passion can temporarily dull a persons sense of good judgment but pregnancy is just too important to allow those passions to completely over take our good judgment. It is my unpopular belief that if a woman decides to have sex without the use of a contraceptive she should be in a good marriage and ready physically, and mentally to conceive, and parent a child.

“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”
(Mother Teresa)

Men also bare a responsibility pertaining to the consequences of casual sex. Any man who would either suggest, support, or agree to pay for an abortion is an accomplice to murder. If the woman is willing to have sex without using birth control and the couple is not attempting to conceive a child, it is then up to the man to prevent the pregnancy. I believe too many men feel that if she is willing to take the chance and she is the one who may become pregnant, why should I care? The answer of course is “you should care because you will be playing a part in either bringing an unwanted child into the world or far worse the murder of a child if the woman has an abortion.” How a man can be so callus as to detach himself from any responsibility of impregnating a woman just because she is reckless enough to take the chance is beyond my understanding. A man who takes his pleasure then walks away with the attitude that whatever happens is her problem is far less than a man. He would have more integrity to employ the services of a prostitute: at least they have the common sense to take precautions to avoid pregnancy.

Abortions have sometimes been performed to preserve the reputation of the woman who gets pregnant. These are usually performed with a great deal of secrecy. Abortion clinics routinely advocate this type of abortion. Often the woman is very young and she is encouraged or even forced to have an abortion by her parents, all to protect the family name. I can only deduct from this that the family would rather murder done in secret to become a part of their family history than to have the family name tarnished by an unwed mother. It is sad when people would rather have innocent blood on their hands that no one can see than to have a promiscuous female in the family. A woman who chooses to stand by her values and carry her child to full term in the face of criticism, humiliation, and disavowlment of family has the kind of tenacity, honor, and courage that would make me proud to have in my family.

There is an argument that without legalized abortion, people will seek alternative methods of abortion such as going to someone who is not a physician but has some experience in the procedure. The argument persists that such a course of action may result in serious injury to the woman and may even be life threatening. If we follow this same philosophy, we should also set up legalized establishments of prostitution where the girls are routinely examined by a physician to reduce the possibility of contracting the Aids virus. Also let’s legalize all drugs to reduce the violence associated with the drug trade. Get the point? If we as a society, tolerate and permit harmful behavior in an attempt to insure the safety of those people engaging in such behavior, our society will soon decay to a state of deplorable morality unprecedented since the existence of Sodom and Gomorra.

There is one condition that I would not be critical of a woman having an abortion. If the pregnancy is threatening to the mothers life I would support her decision to have an abortion though I yet would be uncomfortable with it. Self preservation is the one motive that I understand and can agree with.

---

1 Jeff Gilbert- Abortion Perspectives-Medicine, page 2 http://www.potterschool.com/abortion/medicine.html
views of the pro-choice advocates are irrational, ignorant, and lacking of morality and biblical justification.

Carl Light

© Copyright 2006 Carl Light (Copy as is with reference to source with permission)