Some would call themselves pro-choice. People are usually for women's rights, but no one is truly for-abortion. Is abortion of an unborn child really a chooseable option for anyone? Can we then take the next extreme and call it what it truly is - murder?

Is the destruction of human life, especially the life of a child, ever justified? When an abortion is performed, is what is being aborted human life or can it be so easily discarded as just genetic, biological material in human form? Since abortion was made legal in the United States due to the Roe vs. Wade case, abortion has been a hotly debated topic, and the moral and ethical basis behind it has always been disputed. Mostly everyone will agree that a human being has value and worth and no one has the right to “abort” a human being, but abortion is considered a different matter because what is being aborted has not yet been born. The issue is that if what is unborn is alive, even though it hasn’t been declared born, then it is to be considered human, with human rights, and treated with worth. What is in the womb is not biological material a part of the woman that she has rights over, but from fertilization a potential human being that should have its own rights. Abortion would then be unethical. It could even be considered murder and those that perform abortion as monsters. Though this contemporary issue is hotly debated, one can still come to a conclusion and decide that abortion is morally wrong. Once we can decide that what is in the womb is human with intrinsic moral value and worth as a human being, the arguments for abortion end, and abortion becomes a massive destruction of human life that should once again be outlawed. And because of the serious extensiveness of abortion today, abortion then becomes a silent holocaust.

Some would argue that an embryo or fetus is small, and therefore shouldn’t be considered a human being. This argument is not logical. Shaquille O’neal and Yow Ming are very tall basketball players with large shoe sizes to prove it – would their heights make them any more human than an average-sized human being? Would it give them more value? It is certainly unique for them and provides them an advantage in basketball, but it does not contribute any more to the fact of their humanity than it would a toddler or a normal child. Someone would then point out that in its early stages an embryo cannot think, feel, take care of itself, or have sensation of its own existence. They argue these points as if it takes away the humanity of a developing embryo. Yet, many disabled people also cannot think nor have sensation of their own awareness anymore. Does that mean they can be aborted, though they are fully developed? Children can’t take care of themselves. Many children, in fact, would die without the proper care of loving parents over them, because they are small and not as fully developed as an adult human being. Does this sap them of their right to be called human and declared as humanity? It is often argued that an embryo only has dependency on one person – the mother – in its development, and thus is a part of the mother biologically and has no rights of its own. The level of dependency should never be a contributing factor to this argument considering almost everyone has depended on someone else at some point. We depend on other drivers to stop and obey the signals so that our lives aren’t extinguished at the wheel. We depend on grocers to stock their shelves with safe food products we can eat and allow us on their private properties in order to purchase them. We depend on doctors to give us proper diagnoses and not just their intelligent opinion. We depend on the president we elect to do their job and represent the people. A fetus developing dependently on its mother subtracts nothing from its rights to life. To oppose abortion seems to give a sinister, more parasitic view of an unborn fetus. No one seems to look at a toddler or an 8-year-old that way and they are just as dependent on their mothers for nutrition and well-being as a developing child still in the womb (if not more, considering they can wander away and have financial needs such as toys and clothing).

An unborn child has a different environment, which may begin in the womb. Does it change in any way its perception of being “alive”? “It doesn’t interact with you and I like a toddler does, but [he interacts] with his mother in exactly the way someone at his stage of development should” (Wagner, 2007). Steve Wagner of Stand to Reason writes that an unborn child breathes into its lungs amniotic fluid. Though a fetus cannot withstand our out-of-womb environment for very long on its own at a certain stage of development, can we survive in their environment? If an embryo is left on its own to use its resources it develops into a fully grown human being. Shouldn’t this be protected and sheltered from abortion? In Taking Sides, one author argues that the sperm and egg cells, though sex cells, don’t have the propensity to develop on their own into a fully formed human, and neither do they have this function. He adds to this the fact that even sex cells die off upon fertilization. However, the human embryo “possesses from the beginning the internal resources and active disposition to develop himself or herself to full maturity” (Lee and George, 2004). Biologically, the fetus is its own being. Gametes unite to form the embryo. Gametes are reproductive cells that are themselves a part of the mother and father, with their DNA, and come together in fertilization. But, once they unite together and fertilize they form a cell that has neither the mother nor the father's DNA. Nor is it biologically a part of mother or father. But instead what's formed is a living cell with DNA that uniquely belongs to the child, and that unlike its parent's DNA, the same as a fully developed human being. I had asthma all my life, since the age of 1, and had to carry an inhaler around with me every where I went, yet today I’m now getting a college degree. One could say I've developed pretty far since I was 1. If some unsuspecting doctor would have told my mother I’d have a chronic disease all my life he may have deprived me of my right to live and write this paper. Yes, it's true that a rape or incest victim has undertaken a great tragedy. But, this doesn’t mean that she should inflict a second tragedy by ending the life of her unwanted child, who also has rights of his or her own (Monahan, 2006). The rapist first does a crime to the unsuspecting mother akin to murder. But, then again, the victim then becomes the villain as she commits a second crime by aborting her unborn child.

Once we consider that a developing fetus has moral value as a human being, it is monstrous to even consider destroying its struggle to live. The baby even has its own blood type and takes on human shape in its development. Shouldn’t we give the child rights to decide if an abortion is necessary or not? If this could be done, I don’t believe abortion would be legal anymore. When the abortion argument is brought up or presented, consider the humanity of the unborn person when making ethical or moral decisions on its legality.

 

Bibliography

Lee, P., & George, R. P. (2004). The wrong of abortion. Taking Sides. Blackwell Publishing, Ltd..

Monahan, M. (2006). Quick facts about abortion. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from Abortion Facts Web site: http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp

Wagner, Steve (2007). The SLED test – four top arguments. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from Stand To Reason Web site: http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/2.1_four_top_arguments.pdf?docID=861