24/7 writing help on your phone
Abortion is one of the numerous things that everybody has an opinion on. It is, ‘the end of a pregnancy after, joined by, bringing about, or nearly pursued by the passing of the fetus or embryo as a spontaneous expulsion of a human baby during the initial 12 weeks of incubation. (2012 Merriam-Webster dictionary). Abortions have dependably been and will most likely always be a questionable point in which everybody won’t concur upon. From this discussion, two groups have developed. These groups are referred to as pro-life and pro-choice.
As indicated by Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context, prof-life supporters guarantee that life starts at conception, along these lines, fetus removal at any phase in the pregnancy is murder. They trust that life is significant and the life of the unborn infant has indistinguishable rights from the mother. Pro-choice supporters, then again, guarantee that it is the woman’s entitlement to pick what she does with her body. These professional abortionists guarantee that enemies of abortionists are genuinely against the privileges of women and free decision instead of termination of the fetus.
Abortion is not a matter of choice, it’s a matter of life and how we value life.
Take a look at the pictures of aborted babies, murdered babies, lying without legs or arms, in a pile of blood with their little fingers and face features in pain, or listen to what any ex-abortionist doctor says about when they were doing the ‘PROCEDURE’, and how the baby moved away and tried to hide in the walls of the uterus, or that its head moved when the aborted baby was placed a few seconds still alive in the lab desk.
Such direct evidence is very powerful. This process is inhumane yet people will argue and say “are you going to take care of the child?” Pro-abortionists argue that pro-lifers aren’t willing to support the greater number of children who would be born due to the ending of abortion. This is an irrelevant argument since it does not address the issue of whether unborn babies are human or not. But there’s something else that’s wrong with this argument and it’s something that’s wrong with the argument itself. It’s something that’s functionally wrong with the thinking. It can’t work even if none of the pro-lifers want to support the children saved from abortions. The argument doesn’t work. Once again, I’ll restate the argument. ‘It sounds to me like you’re saying that it is not appropriate for a person to object to the killing of unborn children if they are not willing to provide for the unborn children that are allowed to live.’ That’s the argument. Having restated that and getting an affirmative nod from the person I’m talking with, I want to ask another question. ‘What would you say if I suggested that we solve the homeless problem in this way? We herd all of the homeless together, who are really a drag on our resources, and inject them with a poison or gas them. Let’s just kill them and get them out of the way. Would you object to that?’ I presume the answer would be yes and then the response that I would offer would be ‘What if I told you that you have no right to object to killing the homeless unless you’re willing to take some of the homeless into your home or help to pay for them out of your own pocket. Your moral objection isn’t sound if you aren’t willing to take care of the needs that accrue as a result of letting them live.’ Obviously in a circumstance like that the person is going to say that it’s not an appropriate kind of argument for the same reason that it’s not appropriate to say that the United States couldn’t object to the killing of Jews in Nazi Germany unless we were willing to take all six million Jews onto our own soil. The reason is because we’re talking about human beings. We’re talking about people’s lives and you don’t make a trade off like that. If a person’s life is in jeopardy it doesn’t matter whether you’re willing to care for that life or not for you to have a legitimate moral objection against the taking of that innocent life. That’s the point. Now in light of all of this, Pro-abortionists argue that abortion prevents unwanted children and therefore prevents child abuse. First, I would suggest that abortion is the ultimate child abuse. To what greater abuse could a child be subjected than be ripped piece by piece from her mother’s womb? Secondly, if this argument were true then the rate of child abuse in the country would have gone DOWN since abortion was legalized in 1973. On the contrary, though, child abuse has gone UP since then. The nonchalant way in which the nation accepts abortion has led to a devaluation of human life that has led to more abuse, not less. . Maureen Condic, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University Of Utah School Of Medicine, explains that the ‘most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex,’ is developed by eight weeks gestation, and adds that ‘There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester.’ This concludes my argument of direct evidence towards abortion.
Unborn persons are dependent on their mothers for survival just as newborn babies and young children are, and indeed, as many elderly and ill persons are. Being dependent does not make one not human or not a person. Pro-abortionists argue that pro-lifers are concerned with unborn babies, not women and born children. This is an irrelevant argument since it does not address the issue of whether unborn babies are human or not. However even so, it is still patently absurd. If that were the case then pro-lifers would not be running crisis pregnancy centers all over the country. If that were the case then pro-lifers would not be more active in charities than the average person. If that were the case then pro-lifers would not be giving help to both child AND mother during and after pregnancy. If that were the case then pro-lifers would not be trying to adopt children. ‘New York state law says you are alive when you begin to breathe.’ Deborah Glick on Tuesday, January 17th, 2017 in a debate in the Assembly chamber. ‘So, if a baby is born intact and alive but has not yet taken its first breath, it has no rights?’ Assembly member Steven F. McLaughlin asked. ‘Is that the position you are taking?’ ‘New York state law says you are alive when you begin to breathe,’ Glick said. ‘That’s not me, that’s just the law.’ Now you might stop to ask yourself, Is Glick right? Is that the law? The truth is that no conclusive evidence has been provided which proves that an unborn baby is not a person. Since the number of cases concerning the abortion issue involves millions of lives, no sane or humane society would risk committing millions of murders. It is a fallacy to argue that pro-life laws are an effort to legislate morality since all laws are passed to restrict or encourage behavior, and hence have some kind of moral view of the world being promoted. Even if women continue to have illegal abortions, this is no logical argument in support of keeping abortions ‘safe and legal’. First, even legal abortions are dangerous to the mother physically and psychologically. Second, it is a fallacy to argue that a law should be changed because some persons will break it. Just because every child may not be wanted by their parents, is not reason enough to justify killing the child because parents have a responsibility for the life they helped to create, and because an unborn person has a right to live which outweighs another person’s right to kill and to avoid raising a child they created. Having the freedom to choose whether or not an unborn person is to be killed is not a right which can be justified morally or legally. No person has right to destroy the life of another person.
The unborn person is human and physically distinct from the mother and not just part of her own body. The unborn child often has a blood type different from that of the mother. If the differing blood types were to mix, one or both of the mother and child could die. Half of all babies are male. During the pregnancy, is the mother temporarily part male? Without the protection provided by the amniotic sac the unborn child would be expelled from the mother’s body as a foreign object. Clearly, the unborn child IS IN the mother’s body but IS NOT PART of the mother’s body. Pro-abortionists like to say that the child is only a ‘potential’ human. That the child IS something is obvious. Calling her a ‘potential’ human doesn’t say what she is, it only speaks to what she will be. I have never heard a pro-abortionist say what the child IS. The reason for that is obvious. They know the answer and that answer is that the child is human. No person or animal has ever been observed to change into some other kind of creature during their lifetime. If something is a cat, it has always been a cat, and will always be a cat. If someone is a human being then they have always been and will always be a human being. No clearly defined point at which to state an embryo is human or is not has ever been empirically established by pro-abortionists. The Fourteenth Amendment states, ‘The State shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Life begins at conception each individual has a very neat beginning at conception. This is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence and basic knowledge you learn in pretty much any basic science class. If a fertilized egg is not by itself a full human being it could not become one, because nothing is added to it. That is, life begins when the sperm and egg get together at conception to form a full set of DNA, without which human life would not begin and progress (Dr. Jerome LeJuene). Dr. M. Matthew Roth, of Harvard University, said ‘It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception.’
In 1983, President Ronald Reagan penned an essay that became a book entitled, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. ‘The real question today is not when human life begins, but, ‘What is the value of human life?” he wrote. ‘The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother’s body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law — the same right we have.’ We as a society must ask ourselves, as President Reagan did, ‘What is the value of human life?’ We know that for those in the abortion industry, and especially the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, innocent human life has no value — unless the body parts are made available piece by piece. (Carol Tobias July 28 2015 12:01am). Humanity doesn’t begin the moment we are born or the second we take our first breath. Humanity begins at the moment of conception. Despite all the scientific evidence confirming what we know to be true about life in the womb, abortion supporters continue to devalue the preborn. Abortion is not a matter of choice, it’s a matter of life and how we value life as a whole. Concluding all of this comes down to basic knowledge, dead things don’t grow and certainly if a fetus was not a life it sure wouldn’t be growing inside the mother’s womb. That is a life and it should be valued as such and nothing less. We can stop stifling our conscious to protect a female’s feelings in trying to justify her killing and taking an innocent life.
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.get help with your assignment