abortion

Abortion has been often touted as "the right to choose". I agree that there is a right of choice involved which must be respected. But the question is: whose choice? What about the baby being aborted? Does it get a choice as to whether it will live or not? In this debate I will seek to show that, contrary to the claim of the Pro Speaker, Abortion is wrong, both from the standpoint of health and also from a moral standpoint. First, however, it is imperative to come to some sort of conclusion about what an abortion actually does; whether it is a termination of life or not. DISCLAIMER: This does contain graphic descriptions of an abortion. Point 1: Life Begins At Conception A--Scientific Evidence From the moment the male sperm is joined with the female egg, all of the DNA that will ever be present in the child that will later be born is already present. This was stated clearly by developmental geneticist Jerome Lejeune, the discoverer of the chromosomal basis for Down"s Syndrome, in his book "A Symphony of the Preborn Child: Part 2". As is denoted by his profession and accomplishments therein, Lejeune is a noted expert in this area. He said: ""each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception " As soon as the 23 chromosomes carried by the sperm encounter the 23 chromosomes carried by the ovum, the whole information necessary and sufficient to spell out all the characteristics of the new being is gathered " a new human being is defined which has never occurred before and will never occur again " [it] is not just simply a non-descript cell, or a "population" or loose "collection" of cells, but a very specialized individual "" If there is never any additional genetic information added after conception, then it is mathematically impossible that there could be any other beginning to the life of the child. If no other factors are added afterward, then there is nothing after conception which could cause the inception of life. B--Simple Reason and Common Sense When a doctor performs an abortion, he removes the "fetus" as they call it (always avoiding the term "baby") and throw it away. If you search the web it is not difficult to find a picture of such a fetus. Upon examination you will see that, though perhaps awfully maimed by the abortion, it has a head, two legs, two arms". All of the physical characteristics of a human being. Furthermore, when doctors insert their tools for performing the abortion it is not unheard of for the fetus inside to cringe and run away from it in fear. So I would ask: is something that has human DNA, all physical human characteristics, and is capable of emotion and thought to be considered a living being? And I would contend that yes, it is. Conclusion: Life begins at conception. There is no other scientific or reasonable claim to be made about when life begins. Either it begins when we are conceived, or it never begins at all. Thus, abortion is the termination of life. Point 2: The Baby"s Right to Life The Pro Speaker stated that every woman should have the right to make her own choices when it came to her health. I would agree. But what about when it comes to the life of another human being? If a mother was incapable of taking care of her 2 year old son and opted to kill him, she would be reviled by the entire world and taken to court for murder. But when that son was only a few weeks old in her womb he was just as much alive (as we have already established). So for her to kill him at 2 weeks into pregnancy is just as much murder as it is to kill him when he is 2 years old. The CHILD has a right to make a choice when it comes to his/her health as well. But where is the champion of it"s rights? The Pro Speaker asks, "What if a teen was raped and she was only in high school????" Well, the fact of the matter is that the rapist has committed a great crime. He has taken advantage of her in a way which is both legally and morally reprehensible and depraved. But if the girl were to then take the life of her own child, would it right the wrong which was done her? Do two wrongs make a right? No. The girl has been done a grave wrong, but the fact that she has been done wrong does not give her the right to then do an even worse wrong to the baby she now carries. If she is unable or unwilling to take care of the child, let her give it up for adoption, but the baby has the right to life just as much as the mother does"the baby"s choice is just as important as the mother"s. Point 3: Abortion Compromises, And Does Not Benefit, The Mother"s Health Now, the moral implications of an abortion should be MORE than enough to convince us that abortion is unacceptable. However, even apart from the moral aspects of it, the medical arguments against abortion are far from trivial. A--Abortion Is NEVER Necessary to Save a Mother"s life. That can be read here in the words of Dr. Anthony Levatino, an obstetrician-gynecologist from New Mexico as he testified before Congress. Dr. Levatino explains the time it takes for the type of abortion in question and says: "In cases where a mother"s life is seriously threatened by her pregnancy, a doctor more often than not doesn"t have 36 hours, much less 72 hours, to resolve the problem. Let me illustrate with a real -life case that I managed while at the Albany Medical Center. A patient arrived one night at 28 weeks gestation with severe pre-eclampsia or toxemia. Her blood pressure on admission was 220/160. As you are probably aware, a normal blood pressure is approximately 120/80. This patient"s pregnancy was a threat to her life and the life of her unborn child. She could very well be minutes or hours away from a major stroke. This case was managed successfully by rapidly stabilizing the patient"s blood pressure and "terminating" her pregnancy by Cesarean section. She and her baby did well. This is a typical case in the world of high-risk obstetrics. In most such cases, any attempt to perform an abortion "to save the mother"s life" would entail undue and dangerous delay in providing appropriate, truly life-saving care." B--Abortion Risks the Mother"s Health This has been well documented and is not hard to find even by just searching the internet for the information. There is a clear summary of the risks from Puja Lalwani writing for Buzzle.com (http://www.buzzle.com...), however, due to space constraints I cannot fit all of it into this debate. In short, though, abortions, both surgical and medical (taking pills) are prone to such side effects which could range from severe depression and abdominal pain to heart attacks, strokes, and, in extreme cases, even death. Conclusion: The facts are undeniable if you are only willing to look objectively at them. Not only is abortion an immoral practice, but it does not render a benefit to the mother. In another part of his testimony to Congress, Dr. Levatino describes a bit about what an abortion would entail: "After tearing off the baby's limbs, Levatino said, "sometimes a face comes out and stares back at you. Congratulations. You have just successfully performed a second trimester Suction D&E abortion. You just affirmed her right to choose."" Understanding the gruesome reality of abortion, it is, perhaps, time to consider the words of Representative Trent Franks of Arizona in the same Congressional hearing where he referred to the words of President Obama at the Newtown school massacre: "This is our first task: caring for our children. It's our first job. If we don't get that right, we don't get anything right. That's how we as a society will be judged," Franks said, quoting Obama. "Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage. That the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited upon our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"