A Case Against Abortion: No Religion Required

Stop Abortion Now

From the Declaration of Independence we read:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our founding principles say that all humans have an inherent and unalienable right to life. The Fourteenth Amendment of our Constitution further codifies this right when it says, “No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”

But abortion denies due process of law to the unborn. Government sanctioned abortion denies the right to life of the unborn infant without the unborn having a chance to defend their right to live.

Now, this sounds crazy, but the debate is really whether the unborn has greater or lesser rights than the mother who wants to kill it. If the baby’s right to live is greater than the mother’s right to not have to bring the baby to term and deliver it then abortion cannot be allowed. If the mother’s right to kill the baby is greater than the baby’s right to live then we have to reexamine the foundations of our nation itself. After all, in over 99% of all unwanted pregnancies, the mother made a decision to perform an act that she knew could result in a human life being created. Once that life has been created the only way to “uncreate” it is to end it, kill it. How can one argue that her right to not be inconvenienced because of a poor decision she made overrule the right of a human life to exist?

So some would argue that maybe the “fetus” is not yet a human life. But Dr. Jerome Lejeune, professor of fundamental genetics in Paris, had something to say about that. Keep in mind that he’s not writing as a Christian but as a scientist in the area of genetics. He says:

“Life has a very long history but each individual has a very neat beginning, the moment of its conception. The material link is the molecular thread of DNA. In each reproductive cell, this ribbon roughly one meter long is cut into pieces twenty-three, or chromosomes. As soon as the twenty-three paternally derived chromosomes are united through fertilization to the twenty-three material ones, the full genetic meeting necessary to express all the inborn qualities of the new individual is gathered and personal constitution takes place. At two months of age, the human being is less than one thumb-length from the head to the rump. He would fit at ease in a nutshell, but everything is there, hands, feet, head, organs, brain. In the fourth week, there is consciousness. All are in place. His heart has been beating for a month by the second month. His fingerprints can be detected, his heart is beating 150 to 170 beats a minute. To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place, a new human being has come into being, is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,”

My answer to the argument of when life begins is this: Maybe the fetus is not yet a human life until a certain point in development. But what point is that? At what point do we KNOW for certain that the fetus has become a human being and can no longer be destroyed without killing a human life. 12 weeks? 20 weeks? Birth? We don’t know. We also don’t know for certain that the baby ISN’T a human life at the moment of conception. Some scientists, such as Dr. Jerome Lejeune, would argue conception is life. But if we, as a society, truly cherish human life, truly believe that life itself is an inherent and unalienable right, then how can we allow something that could potentially murder millions of innocent human lives every year? If there’s even a chance the fetus is a human life then we should err on the side of caution, should we not?

But it’s about the right of freedom, right? The mother has a right over her own body, right? Except it’s not her body. It is the body of a human that she happened to create by a choice she made. How then, can her right of freedom supersede the right to life of the unborn child?

A woman in California had a baby in a bathroom and killed it immediately after it was born. She was prosecuted for murder, of course. But if she had killed the baby before it was born it would have been acceptable and there would have been no crime? Yet, hypocritically, our society does recognize that the unborn have certain rights. Attacks on pregnant women that have caused unborn babies to die have resulted in criminal prosecution. So a person can be prosecuted for killing an unborn baby in the mother’s womb…but a mother can’t be prosecuted for killing that same baby while it’s still in the womb. What kind of hypocritical justice is that?

Other arguments for abortion are simply indefensible. A backup to birth control? Reproductive freedom? Murder as a form of birth control? Possible genetic defect? Who decides what defects are unacceptable? How do we decide for another human that their life isn’t worth living? Wrong sex? Wrong eye color? Where would it end?

So you see, it’s simply not possible to let everyone do whatever they want to do or whatever they think is right in this situation because our society is dependent upon us following certain foundational principles. The right to life is, perhaps, the most important principle we have. To surrender this right on behalf of an unborn human is to surrender the very foundation of all other rights. If the right to life itself is not paramount then what other right is safe?

Leave a Reply