Abortion is Wrong

To start off, I want to prove that the unborn is 1) Human. This is an important thing to know when dealing with abortion. Pro-life or pro-choice, there should be no question whether the unborn is human or not. If the unborn isn't human, we have every right to end its life, just like we do to cows and pigs. However, from the just simple science, we see that the fetus, from the very moment of conception is a human being. We can prove this because at the moment the sperm enters the egg, the new baby has all 46 chromosomes needed to put it into the class of homosapien sapien (human). Secondly, it has its very own unique set of DNA. Please note that this DNA is totally different from its mother; therefore, the fetus is not the mother's body. Please don't get me wrong, I am all for womens' rights to choose. I believe they should be able to choose what college they go to, who they marry, what car they can buy, and where they can go. But when people say "Women have the right to choose," you must ask the question, "Choose what?" I think no one, man or woman, should be able to choose life or death for a child. Now there are most likely questions to what I just said: "Is the fetus even alive? If not, then she's not killing anything." Or the question, "Is it a child yet? It hasn't even been born." I wish to address these before moving on. According to Oxfords Dictionary, life is defined as: "The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." I believe the fetus inside the womb is capable of all such conditions and is therefore alive. First, the fetus is growing, from day one, there isn't much to discuss there. Second, reproduction. No, the fetus is not capable, at it's present stage, to reproduce. But that is simply a function not yet developed. If the baby's worth or value is diminished because of its level of development, then a 6 year old girl would be less valuable than a 14 year old girl. This is because the 14 year old is more developed than the 6 year old. So to claim that because the fetus is not yet fully developed, then it is less valuable and therefore able to be killed, would be saying you have good justification for the murder of a 6 year old. Functional activity is another requirement that falls under the category of "Level of Development." The ability to function is an ability not yet developed in the fetus. But if you claim you can kill it because it's not functioning, you make the same claim to the people that have been is some accident and has been put into a coma. They too do not function and often show no brain activity. But to claim that you can just kill anyone put into a coma is ludicrous. Sadly, if you claim the fetus isn't alive due to its lack of brain activity, you must stay true to this idea and back the murder of every person in a coma. Lastly, the fetus is continually changing and it will die, hopefully around 80 years later, but it will die nonetheless. So all of this in mind, we can reasonably and logically conclude the fetus is alive. So with the above paragraphs, we now see that the fetus is a living human. Now we can take a look at the cases that people will claim are good reasons for killing this human. The first one is in the case of rape and incest. I believe there is someone who should be killed in the aftermath of a rape. I really do. But its not the mother, and its not the child created during the heinous act. The man, if ever caught, I believe should be immediately sentenced to death. No jail time, no parole, death. I think that would first give the man what he deserves, it would second reduce the number of rapes committed. If rapists knew they were risking their life by raping an innocent woman or child, they would start weighing the risk vs. reward differently. But to the main point, the child created was not the one committing the crime. People say that the child will be a constant reminder of what happened to the woman. This is truly regrettable, it really is. But to kill the child will only be adding shame and guilt on the woman, not alleviating it. To be raped, then commit murder right after it, would take such an incredible toll on a woman's heart and mind. Pretend with me that I have a 2 year old with me. He was conceived in rape. I know of no reason why we could pull a trigger and end his life, even if he reminded the mom of the rape every time she saw him. Now you might say that the 2 year old and the fetus are completely different, but if you take a look at my first few paragraphs, you'll see this shouldn't matter. The fetus is simply not as developed as the 2 year old, but saying you can kill based on level of development is not logically sound. So I don't believe abortion should be allowed in the case of rape and incest. I also hear people say, "What if the parents already have 4 kids and they can't afford another one?" My response to this is very simple and very logical. Those parents should first kill their oldest child. Bear with me for a moment. If they were going to kill a child due to money, then the most logical thing would be to kill the oldest child. The oldest child is the most costly one to feed, to clothe, to send to school, while the child inside of her would be much cheaper to raise. So if the reason was money, the parents should logically kill the oldest child. But we don't do that. We don't do that because we recognize the oldest child as alive and human and valuable. Sadly, our mindsets don't reflect this onto the children in the womb. But as I showed in my first few paragraphs, they are just as alive and human and valuable as you and me, therefore they should be treated this way. So I don't think the financial situation is sufficient justification either. Next I hear people say, "The baby is still dependent on the mother, so the mother should be able to decide what to do with it." This may sound reasonable at first but it falls by the wayside when its looked at deeper. If we fluctuate the baby's worth and value base on its degree of dependency, then our value changes with our degree of dependency as well. So when we are born and even to when we are 2 or 3 years old, you could argue that we're completely dependent on our parents to feed and clothe us and keep us alive. But even at this stage, we don't use their dependency as reason to kill them, that's again because we have value and worth despite our degree of dependency. So this isn't good reasoning either to kill the unborn. Another common thing I hear is that because the baby isn't born yet, it isn't alive. This argument doesn't hold any water because you'll see that they say the value of the baby is contingent on the environment of the baby. Were you a different person when you walked into your work or school or house? Did your value change when you moved from one side of the bed to the other? Well you moving from one place to another is just as trivial as the 8-inch journey the baby takes down the birth canal to be called "born." There is nothing special about that journey that all of a sudden deems it a human with worth and a right to life. If you did say that, you would be subjecting yourself to a change in value or personhood every time you changed your environment or location. Again, the value of the child is not contingent on its environment. I now leave it up to you con, to propose a new argument for why the unborn is either: not human, not alive, or not worthy of life. Because from everything I've seen, a fetus is just as alive and human as you and I, and therefore, if we are to be able to call ourselves decent, we should fight for their right to life. Sources: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...