Imagine that the title of this blog post was a headline in a major newspaper today.  Then let the number of the title sink in for a second.  That is the more people than many nations on the planet earth.  It is more than twenty-five times the number of wounded and dead from ALL of America’s military conflicts and wars from 1775 forward.  It is more than four times the number of people killed by Hitler during this terms as ruler of Germany.  These numbers describe a genocidal holocaust on the largest magnitude, overshadowed by the genocide of Mao Zedong’s cultural revolution.  What these fifty-five million dead represents the estimated number of abortions that have occurred since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Texas’s abortion laws in 1973 in the historical case of Roe v. Wade.  The hundreds of millions wounded describe the other fallout of that supreme court decision representing the women physically, emotionally or mentally scarred by the abortion itself.

The history of abortion is an interesting and contradictory one in the United States.  In the early years of the republic it was legal to terminated a pregnancy through different means before the quickening, the time when the mother can feel and know that a child is in her womb.  The first abortion laws passed at the behest of medical doctors to prevent midwives and other medical practitioners who were not doctors from taking their business.  That still does not make it moral, right or even ethical though.  I can usually appreciate and respect the other side of the debate in public policy.  In this case I am incapable of taking the other side.  If that offends you then stop reading.  If your interested in listening to the other side of the debate though please by all means read on.  And let’s have a discussion about this contentious public policy debate.  Here is where I stand, if it’s not already obvious.

Many of the pro-choice advocates talk about the woman’s right to choose, the right to privacy in decisions about reproductive decisions.  Logically that makes sense if the body she were making decision about was hers.  Biologically the baby is a separate person.  Since when do you get to make the choice of life or death for another person?  Not the point I was trying to make but an important one if the baby is alive and a person.  My point was that baby was not created because of the actions of only one person (Sidebar: I am obviously not including cases of rape or incest in this, but those are a smallest minority of abortion cases.)  It is clichéd, but it takes two to tango.

What about the father?  Does he not have a right and say in the life of the child?  If the woman were to keep the baby she could force him to pay child support.  How can he be held responsible for the financial support of a child, but not in the decision on whether an abortion takes place to kill the baby?  This logically does not make sense to me, especially as a man.  Where is my choice?  Are not men being deprived of their liberty to raise a child anytime a woman aborts a child that biologically is just as much his as hers? Where is the man’s right to choose?   (Please feel free to respond in the comment section below).    The right of the man is infinitesimally small when compared to another person’s right in this entire situation.  But first, lets talk about life and death.

How do we determine if a person is alive or dead?  If you stumble on an accident and see people hurt you check for a pulse.  Doctors and nurses do this all the time while examining and treating patients.  We have devices that we hook up to people’s bodies to measure and monitor their heart beat.  In emergency situations, the focus on bring people back is on ensuring that their heart is still beating.  It is only after doctors take all reasonable and/or extraordinary measures to restart the heart that a person is declared dead.   Can we all agree to the facts in question?  A beating heart means you are alive, a stopped heart means you are dead.  Agreed?  I assume your nodding your head in agreement or saying, “Yes.”

If I remember correctly from all the baby books I read when my wife was pregnant with my first daughter, the fetus develops a heart and it usually starts beating right around eight weeks after conception.  According to medical science and previously agreed to facts, that fetus is alive.  Abortion then stops that beating heart and the fetus is dead.  Regardless of the situation that created the baby (rape, incest, one night stand, failed birth control, in vitro fertilization, etc.) it is alive.  To say otherwise contradicts all known and practiced medical science.

If the baby inside the mother’s womb is alive, and we agreed that this is true, then does that person not have certain rights as a human being that should be protected?  To quote Thomas Jefferson, the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”   Does not our Constitution protect the right of people to not be deprived of “life, liberty and property without due process”?  Where is the due process for the person within the mother’s womb.  The only argument against this point would be to say that the baby in the womb is not a person.  If you want to make that argument go ahead, but you have to answer me this question.  When do they become a person worthy of the protections provided for us by our creator and secured by our Constitution?  (Again leave your comments below).  Lastly, lets talk about the difference between two similar situations.

Imagine you and your spouse are “with child.”  Your happy because you for a long time to have kids.  Things are humming along and then suddenly there are problems.  You and your spouse spare no cost to protect the life of that unborn child, but in the end its to no avail.  The child dies.  You are heartbroken.  Your life is shattered by this unexpected loss.  Maybe you bury the body of the child.  How and why is this any different from an abortion?  The only difference is that the dead child, as a victim of abortion, was not wanted, desired, or obviously loved, because we don’t like things we want, desire or love.

The problem with that argument is that this child could be loved if the parents of the aborted child made a different choice.  There are families out there who can not get pregnant, but want children.  Give that unwanted or unplanned child to them to raise in loving home.  In many states you can actually choose the parents of your child  and be involved with them if you want.  Adoption is one of the hardest and most selfless decision a person can make, but it is the best decision too because it takes the mistakes that brought about this child and creates love that was not there before.  That mistakenly created is wanted, desired and loved, we as humans, just have to find out who wants them, who desires them, and by whom this child will be loved.

In summary, men help make life and babies.  Do they also not have rights in the decision. Secondly, conception creates a beating heart; abortion stops it.  How are the rights of that person protected?  Lastly, every child is wanted, desired and loved.  What will you do to make sure yours is?

I know abortion is a very contentious and heated debate.  I honestly welcome discussion and debate on this issue.  Please keep it respectful and focused on the facts, not emotions or hyperbole.  Any personal attacks made in the comments sections will cause you to be censored by me and possibly kicked off the boards at my discretion.  If you feel you are being attacked please email me personally and I will deal with it as soon as possible.  Thanks again for your time and your readership.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed and have a nice day.

Advertisements