Abortion defies logic

"They're not really humans," "Their lives hold the potential to improve the lives of others," "Doing this is economically necessary for some," "It's not morally wrong," and, "If you don't want one, don't get one." Such were the arguments for keeping slaves in the 1800s.

Today, these same arguments would be ridiculed if anyone tried to use them to justify slavery, yet all of them are used to justify abortion. Abortion is the "slavery" of our time, yet so many people don't realize how illogical the arguments for this institution are. At the turn of the 19th century, slavery was debated just as abortion is today, but 65 years later truth prevailed. Hopefully we will be able to see the same thing happen in our day.

To begin the argument against abortion, we must establish when life begins. Actually, this question has a simpler answer than it is made out to be and is agreed upon by all sides. After hearing extensive medical testimony, the U.S. Senate declared that, "Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." Planned Parenthood agrees, but takes a different tack by arguing that our society should be able to accept abortion as a process that kills babies. Faye Wattleton, past president of Planned Parenthood, declared, "I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus." Abortion kills.

If the baby isn't human, though, it might be acceptable to kill it. But if infants are not human in the womb, what are they? Pro-abortion forces call the baby a fetus, but that really is just a human in its early stages of development. Abortion kills humans.

Many excuses are offered, though, to make these killings seem ok, but none of them really excuses the act. Size, location viability, dependence, cost, unintendedness and mother's choice are some of the primary justifications, but in reality they are poor excuses.

If the baby is tiny, why is its life then forfeit? Short people don't have any less of a right to free speech than tall people, so why should small children have less of a right to life? Size does not matter.

Just because the baby is inside the womb of the mother, does its location enable it to be killed? Soldiers on the front lines in war still have the right to life, and their comrades will do everything to save the lives of the wounded. Even people in dangerous locations still have rights.

The fact that infants are not viable outside the womb, but are dependent on the mother, does not justify their killing either. Just because our machines can't keep them alive means nothing, because by removing them from the womb, we have deprived them of the one "machine" that will keep them alive. Infants can survive in their mothers' wombs, and should not be considered unviable because they can't survive outside of them. Even "viable" infants outside the womb still depend on their parents.

Dependence upon the mother is a similar argument. Few would seriously justify saying that elderly citizens on pacemakers have no right to life because they depend on devices, so they shouldn't say infants have no rights either. Dependence does not deny infants their rights.

Saying that abortion is justifiable because the mother can't afford to raise the child is one of the scariest arguments to make. Alternatives such as adoption are available to prevent mothers from having to make this choice. In reality, though, no one deserves to die just because they are too expensive. Hospitals are required to give treatment to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. Cost should be irrelevant.

To argue that unintended children coming out of rape or incest can be killed is an equally scary argument. I was always taught that two wrongs don't make a right, yet this is a very common reason given for why abortion should be allowed. If the mother is going to have intense mental pain raising the child of her attacker, adoption is again available, but don't make the child suffer for the wrongs of the father.

Abortion has become what it is today because of the argument of mother's choice. The Pro-Choice movement claims that the mother should be able to choose. Consider though, that by that logic, thieves also have the right to choose to remove things others possess. Freedom of choice only extends until it denies others their freedoms. Infants who have a right to life have that right violated when the mother decides to vacuum them apart.

By this point, many readers may have decided that because I have a Y chromosome, and thus never am able to have an abortion myself, that I should not be allowed to argue against it. Such an argument is equally ludicrous, because males are affected by abortion. The babies in the womb can be either male or female, but an abortion kills regardless of the gender. Consider how this argument would be extended into other areas of life if it were accepted as valid. American citizens would have no voice in our immigration laws because only those wanting to immigrate would be able to make the choice to come here. Men have just as much a right to speak about abortion, and this is what I am saying: Abortion kills humans without a sound excuse. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Contact writer Caleb Routhier at caleb.routhier@richmond.edu