Foreword:
An essay on abortion that I wrote in my freshmen year of college for English Critical Thinking in 2008. It is interesting to note that the Democratic party has fallen from its defense of life positions of the early 70s and prior. A modern proponent of abortion today is the nominal Catholic Edward 'Ted' Kennedy, who asserts abortion is a woman's right, contrary to his position in the early 70s where he believed his generation would be known for its defense of life from the beginning of conception. As seen here.
In this current election Democratic Presidental candidate Barack H. Obama has an extremely proabortion voting record, even to the point of tolerating infantcide, allowing the death of a born child by allowing the child to die in a hospital table that is already born and survived a failed abortion. His justification at the time as an Illinois legislature was that by recognizing a baby that survived an abortion as a "person" would lead to anti abortion legislation, since the 14th Amendment does not permit killing people. To see a page that links to government pages that reveal Obama's attitude and voting record on abortion and infanticide see here. Barack Obama would be a disasterous pick for President, in an address to Planned Parenthood, a major abortion and contraceptive provider, that funds candidates for their antifetus legislative votes, which is hostile to human life, stated that his FIRST act as President would be signing PROABORTION legislation: "The first thing I would do as President is, is, sign the Freedom of Choice Act." To see the video montage of Barack Obama on abortion go here
God hates abortion and infanticide, Exodus 1 says the midwives in Eygpt did not do the infanticide since "they feared God." Not to mention many times in scripture the shedding of innocent blood is condemned.
It is also interesting to note that the early feminists were opposed to abortion, and believed that women who had them procured would have to answer to God, bearing the guilt of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whose Choice?
Every
year 45 million of 175 million pregnancies result in abortion worldwide (Brown
13). Abortion is a divisive issue
that has split the United States in half since the infamous decision of Roe v.
Wade, which made first trimester abortion a right for women. The
Supreme Court in this case was presented with the case of a Texas woman, Norma
McCorvey, who used the pseudonym Jane Roe, who had sued her state to allow her
to have an abortion because she felt a need for one as an unwed mother and a
rape victim (McCorvey v Hill 1). The
Supreme Court ruled in her favor and consequentially all 50 states legalized
abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy with the second trimester being
regulated by each state. Since the
passing of Roe v. Wade, abortion has been made a method of birth control in the
United States. There have been
several million abortions, with an abortion rate of about one in three
pregnancies (Abortion in the United States- Statistics 1).
Twenty years after she won her case in Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey had a
change in conscience and deeply regretted what she had done and join the prolife
cause. She admitted that she had not
been raped even went as far as to say rape is not a valid reason for abortion,
in addition she stated she did not anticipate “abortions as a form of birth
control” (The Norman Transcript 1) would occur from the suit.
She then attempted to overturn Roe v. Wade by reopening the case before 5th
District court and the Supreme Court by arguing that abortion was harmful to a
woman’s health, but it was too late and the Supreme Court refused to hear her
case in 2005 (McCorvey v. Hill 1). The policy of legal abortions on demand as a
woman’s right is flawed and should be discontinued.
The reasoning for allowing abortion is faulty and the evidence is against
the prochoice agenda on grounds of logic, statistics, and metaphysics.
Many feminists
since the passage of Roe v. Wade such as the National Organization for Women
(NOW) have pushed abortion as a woman’s right by stating the fetus is part of
a woman’s body among other arguments. However,
many feminist groups ignore or downplay that the original feminist movement in
America and Britain were vehemently opposed to abortions and frequently referred
to it as murder. When asked
whether or those who have abortions are guilty, and if there is any valid reason
for an abortion Susan B. Anthony responded, “'Guilty? Yes. No matter what the
motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent,
the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience
in life, it will burden her soul in death,” she then continues men must help
prevent abortions or they themselves will be guilty (Anthony 4). Today there is
one feminist group who seeks to uphold the views of the original feminists such
as Anthony, they call themselves Feminists For Life, whose motto is “Refuse to
Choose, Women Deserve Better than Abortion” (feministsforlife.org 1).
Many who are “pro-choice” insist that the fetus is simply part of a
woman’s body and the abortion of the fetus is comparable to surgery to remove
a tumor, after all how can you kill that which is not a person? According to
this logic the brain, heart, and body parts of the fetus in the womb are part of
the woman’s body, in other words surplus organs.
In other words, they justify abortion by redefining the person of the
fetus as more of an object. This
reasoning was rejected by prochoice advocate Julia Brown who said the fetus has
different DNA, ergo is a different being (Brown 14). Brown’s
justification for abortion fails because she utilizes the fallacy of appealing
to tradition, where she states “Anglo-Saxon legal law has not traditionally
seen the fetus as a legal person” (Brown 14).
By declaring abortion to be the personal choice of a woman is making a
choice for another person and denying the fetus any rights, including those
enumerated in the Constitution, and those spoken of in the Declaration of
Independence such as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
It is ironic that women were previously seen in the past as being
property of men and now it has been legally declared that fetuses are to be
treated as the property of women! This was point on abortion was made in the
time of Elizabeth Cady Stanton when she stated, “when we consider that women
are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our
children as property to be disposed of as we see fit” (Foster 1).
This is the hypocrisy of the modern feminist movement— ignoring the
wisdom of its founders. Others
attempt make abortion acceptable since the fetus is uncapable of mental
processes, and that in order to be able to claim a right such as life, an
individual must be mentally capable of such a thought, consequentially they
claim since a fetus does not have this metal capacity they have no right to life
and there is no moral dilemma with aborting something with no rights (Lee 11).
This may seem to be reasonable logic to some, but this logic falls apart
when looking at those stages of life. Newborns
have little mental capacity, not greatly different than days before in the womb.
Similarly are some of the mentally handicapped.
Does this mean newborns and the mentally handicapped do not deserve life
and that anyone of low intelligence does not have a claim to life because of
their capacities? Recent
Congressional legislation voted that partial birth abortion, which is aborting a
baby in process of the actual birth, to be “a gruesome and inhumane procedure
that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited,” and that has
“risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their
lives” (Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 1).
Yet why is this only said of partial birth abortion and not abortion in
the second or even first trimester? Similarly
a recent Supreme Court has ruled and upheld the ban on partial birth abortion
and the majority opinion state it was infanticide and declared the baby to be
“innocent” and undeserving of this “gruesome act” (Syllabus of Gonzalez
vs. Carhart 2).
Based on empirical evidence and statistics abortion is shown to be a
negative for society and should be criminalized.
Research concerning abortion and breast cancer has revealed a strong
correlation that abortion may be a good indicator as to whether the cancer will
develop. Carroll in presenting his
statistical findings states “when a woman is
nulliparous, an induced abortion has a greater carcinogenic effect because it
leaves breast cells in a state of interrupted hormonal development in which they
are more susceptible” (Carroll 2). Then
he states that actions following abortions may lead to more cancer causing
actions “Abortion can lead to prescription of hormonal contraceptives, and the
mental health sequelae of abortion may lead to use of hormone replacement
therapy” (Carroll 3). Hormonal
contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy Carroll states are also
“conducive to breast cancer” (Carroll 2).
These show that abortion is harmful to a woman’s health, and not just
on the commonly cited emotional and psychological level.
Furthermore, statistical surveys have revealed that the reasons for
abortion including rape, incest, or a health concern with either the baby or
mother accounted for at most 7% of all abortions in the United States in 2004
(Abortion in the United States 1). This
is shocking since many prochoice organizations use cases of rape, incest, and
pregnancy complications to justify keeping abortion legalized.
From a metaphysical point abortion is an indefensible action, unless
severe misconstruing is used, for this reason those in favor of the current
pro-abortion policy rebel against the use of metaphysical reasoning in debating
often citing the establishment clause and the separation between Church and
State. From the Judeo-Christian view
abortion is rejected. Orthodox Jews
to this day, though they believe the fetus does not receive a soul until 40 days
after conception, are opposed to abortion (Freeman 1), citing God’s blessing
and commandment in the book of Genesis to be “fruitful and multiple”
(Genesis 1:28). In addition birth
giving in Judaism is seen as the right of a mother and a cause for celebration.
Christian has historically been strictly opposed to abortion particularly
in Orthodox, Catholic, and conservative Protestant churches.
Only within the last century have more liberal groups permitted
abortions, yet the majority of them are opposed to it.
Early Christian canon laws forbade abortion such as the first century
text the Didache, “You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn
child" (Didache 1). Several
early Christian scholars stated damnation as the penalty for those involved in
the abortions. Among common
citations to justify why abortion is immoral “the LORD hates…hands that shed
innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:16-7), “thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13).
Ultimately the reasoning against abortion is that the baby is a creation
of God and since the baby is wrong to kill it since it is guilty of nothing
worthy of death
Abortion has almost no difference from infanticide, only the age of the
baby in question, and it is a terrible policy and should be ceased and outlawed
particularly in this developed county.
The reasoning used for permitting abortion is flawed in that it
portrays the fetus as a threat to woman even in cases where the fetus poses no
physical harm, it denies the right to live in those not mental capable of such,
it makes the fetus an object and denies the humanity of the fetus and that the
fetus has any rights and gives the decision for life and death in the hands of
another person, it declares the fetus to be a piece of property reminiscent of
how women were viewed as property, it ignores the feminist mothers who
explicitly condemned the practice of abortion, it suggests that opposition to
abortion constitutes as sexism, and it finally rejects the divine prerogative of
God by refusing the fetus to grow and live until a natural death.
Works Cited
Brown, Diana. “A Wiser View of Abortion.” Free Inquiry. Winter 1999.
Rpt. in Should Abortion
Rights Be Restricted?. Ed. Auriana Ojeda.
Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven. 2003.
13-
16.
Carroll, Patrick. “The Breast Cancer
Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion
and Other Risk Factors.” Journal
of the American Physicians and Surgeons.
Fall 2007. 1-3. Online: Google
Scholar. May 26, 2008. <www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf>
Didache.
Early Christian Writings. Online: Google. 1. May 27, 2008.
<http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html>
Fahling, Brian. “Why It’s Okay to Kill a Baby Outside the
Womb.” <http://www.afa.net> May
10, 2000. Rpt. in Should Abortion Rights Be Restricted?. Ed.
Auriana Ojeda. Farmington Hills, MI:
Greenhaven. 2003. 26-30.
Feminists For Life. Online: Yahoo!. May 26, 2008. 1.
<www.feministsforlife.org>
"Jane
Roe" Tells True Story Behind Roe v. Wade Norma McCorvey Says "Pure and
simple. I
lied." The
Free Library. February
11, 1998. Online: Yahoo!. May 27,
2008. <http://www.thefreelibrary.com/"Jane Roe" Tells True Story
Behind Roe v. Wade Norma McCorvey Says...-a055342471>.
Kreeft, Peter. “The
Apples Argument Against Abortion.” Crisis.
December 2000. Rpt. in
Should Abortion
Rights Be Restricted?. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. Farmington
Hills, MI:
Greenhaven.
2003. 35-43.
McCorvey v Hill.
United States Court of Appeals For the Fifth Circuit.
September 14, 2004.
Online: Google
Scholar. 1-10. May 27, 2008.
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0310711p.pdf>
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. United States of America
Congress. Online: Google
Scholar. <http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html>
Syllabus of Gonzalez vs. Carhart. United States Supreme Court. Online:
Google Scholar.
May 21, 2008.
<http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf>
