Friday, August 22, 2014

The problem with the "Pro Choice" argument

A lot of people argue that a woman should have the right to choose whether to keep a pregnancy or to terminate it.  However, there are problems with this argument that need to be addressed.

Many argue that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy.  However, few people on this side of the argument respect the natural rights of the infant.  An infant, thus, has a right not to be murdered.  It has a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, among other natural rights.

Liberty, defined, means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others. By this definition abortion is not only murder, it's an obvious violation of the liberties of the infant.

It also diminishes the value of life.  It causes people to not even bat an eye, to not think twice, about killing a baby, thus ending a life, at the convenience of the mother. If anything, the Federal government should err on the side of protecting life, not taking it.

Diminishing the value of life has created certain social and moral issues, beginning with the idea of "when do you decide an infant is a viable human being."  How do you decide whether it begins at conception, three months, six months, or term?

Still, most pro choice proponents squirm at the thought of killing a baby in the 9th trimester.  Yet how is this any worse than killing a baby in the first trimester? If a mother is squirmish at the thought of ending a pregnancy near term, how is this any worse than ending it near conception?

If you decide it begins at term, then you are going to be aborting babies that could be viable human beings.  You could, then, take a kicking and screaming baby out of a mother, only to end it's life. Or is it only murder after a child is born?

Another problem with the pro choice argument is that many of the people who argue for the right of the mother to choose to have an abortion, they do not fight for her right to choose where to send their child to school, nor her right to choose what to put inside her body (narcotics, cigarette smoke, sugar, high fat foods, marijuana), nor can she choose to opt out of purchasing health insurance.  So in this regard, the pro-choice argument is hypocritical.

Technically speaking, there should be no argument of whether or not a woman can kill her baby.  Technically speaking, the argument should be the morality of killing an unborn infant.  Scientifically, the issue is solved.  Science has proven that a baby has a beating heart at an early age, and, if that heart is not stopped, a fetus will develop into a viable human being.

So, in my mind, a fetus is a viable human being at conception.  How this could be debated, how it could be argued as a matter of choice, is inhumane.

It is a sad thought that a physician can end a life and make a fee in the process.  how is it that a free and just society does not find a problem with this? Yet despite the moral and religious issue here, about three million human beings are aborted every year. This sends a signal to young people that we place a lower value on the small and the weak.

So most young people have an abortion for economic reasons. They kill their baby because it would cost too much to have one, and inconvenience their social lifestyles.  Most people choose abortions because they are not made aware that there baby has a beating heart.  Most women who have abortions grow to regret it, and this affects them for the rest of their lives.

For many young women, abortions is a simpler choice compared with taking responsibility for their actions, and making inconvenient changes in their lives that are necessary for the bearing and raising of children.

For something that impacts a young woman in such a negative way, and sends such a poor messages to young people, how could some people think this is okay?

Most people may not know this, but Spartan men were encouraged to rape.  If they were caught, they were made fun of.  Women were also encouraged to have abortions, and, although unsanitary and risky, many women had them.

The ancient Jews, the Hebrews, were aware of the moral issues caused by rape and abortion, and they sought to end it.  This is why their literature frowned on the practice, and forbade it.  So, if people thousands of years ago saw the problem with abortion, how could we not?

To solve the issue we need to defend and protect the liberties of the unborn children.  We need to educate young people as to when a heart starts beating, and we need to make abortions less convenient and less available.  We also need to encourage abstinence before marriage.

Obviously, regardless of the efforts made by society, there will still be abortions performed, many of them illegally.  Yet this should not stop us, as a moral and just society, from making an effort to end