Your Body, Their Life

      Of course, it all comes down to morality. There is no straight legal thought process in this argument. The issue is one of ethics and morals in our society, not of rights or constitutions. Abortion is accepted by those who accept it, because it is a means to an end, a birth control option when all other options have failed. And the greatly diminished spiritual sense in this and other countries means that the normal inhibitions towards taking another life are removed as women and men alike or told, repeatedly, that it is "just a fetus" or "only a glob of cells" and therefore has no rights. But for those atheists reading this essay, aren't we all just a glob of cells? What makes me any more "viable" than an unborn fetus? If there is no soul, no spirit, than I am no different than a rock, or a tree. All things-rocks, trees, water, humans-are just globs of atoms, right? But I digress. If there is any value on human life, it must come intrinsically, in other words the argument that a person is only as valuable as they are sentient (sentient means conscious, aware of oneself, "awake") is illogical. If sentience is simply electrons and chemicals interacting, than why is sentience any more sacred than anything else? Under such thinking, it is not. My point is that if the arguments used to validate abortion are accepted, then we must admit that we all can be killed, rightfully, abiding by such thinking.

      If this scares you, good. We need to realize that feminists and other groups support abortion simply as a convenience, a birth control method. Abortion is a selfish way of removing unwanted children, after a woman, and a man, have been irresponsible (In cases of rape, obviously, the woman is not responsible. But either is the child.) If modern people want sexual "liberation", they certainly don't want the responsibility that comes with any freedom. They can't even bother to use condoms and birth control most of the time, and when in their ineptness they fail to do so, they expect to hurt a purely innocent young human to resolve their problem. I labor hard to find anything more cowardly and inhumane. We speak of human rights, but seem to think this applies only to our chosen poser children, ignoring large sections of people, including those in communist nations (our government seems to enjoy flirting with our Red brothers) and of course unborn people.

      The basic argument for abortion's legality is that it is killing an insentient being, a being that is, furthermore, not even human. It has human DNA, human cells, it was created by human reproduction, it will become something that we will call human in nine months, it has a human form (the claim that it is a "glob" is absurd, even after only a few weeks, it has the basic human form, including a head, limbs, and a recognizable human body form)-so how is it not human? The argument over its sentience I have already debunked, but I will further demonstrate its absurdity. If I knock someone unconscious, may I kill him or her? They aren't any longer sentient. They are just a glob of cells (a glob, I suppose, can be any shape, correct?) So they a) are no longer sentient b) are no longer human, and c) no longer have any rights whatsoever. One could claim this is an extreme example, but following the guidelines set by many pro-choice advocates, such an even could take place and I would not be prosecuted.

      The last idea to support abortion is actually, unlike the previously mentioned ones, somewhat valid. Many women claim that they ought to be able to do whatever they wish to their own bodies. I don't care what you do to your own body, but the fact remains that your body ends where the child's begins. Yes, he or she uses your blood and nutrient resources. Seriously, the child has its own nervous system, own brain, own DNA. It has rights as an independent human being. Perhaps the infant could not exist outside of the woman's womb, but that does not mean she may simply kill him or her. How barbaric a nation would allow its most innocent and most helpless to be slaughtered on the order of 1.2 million people a year simply for their convenience? A woman can always give her child up for adoption. No, one might say, she has too much of an attachment to the child. Attachment? Only hours ago it was a parasite, feeding on her body, put upon her by an uncaring and oppressive male; only hours ago the child was a burden, a right less being worthy of destruction. Does any of this make sense to anyone? Because I cannot understand how a society can allow such true doublethink and not wonder what happened to human life. Basically, it may be a woman's body supporting the child, but that child is a human being, with its own rights, one which will become a human being-by all people's definition (as it already is by mine)-and one which we will protect. How can we allow these people to be murdered when trees and dirt are protected in national parks? These are humans, and as such deserve their right "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Well, I guess you can involve the Constitution here. But simply from a human level, how can we kill our unborn brothers and sisters?