I am pro-life, anti-abortion or whatever term you would like to use. I am completely and 100% against the destruction of human life at any stage during pregnancy. Through this paper, I hope to defend my position on this debate using arguments we have learned during the course of this semester.
The first thing I must talk about is the current stance of the issue of abortion. Under the leadership of our new president, Barrack Obama, the United States has made many changes that would seem to support the idea that abortion is a right, and therefore acceptable. Among the changes is the reversal of the Mexico Cityrule, which did not allow the government to give funding to organizations that provided abortions overseas. Obama has also removed safeguards that allowed doctors who are ethically opposed to performing abortions to refuse to perform the procedure; he also will decrease funding that is given to privately run hospitals that will not perform abortions, such as Catholic charity hospitals. During the campaign, Obama stated that if one of his daughters was to experience an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy, that he would encourage her to get an abortion, rather to bear the “punishment” of carrying the child to full term. Clearly, Obama is not an advocate for my side of the argument.
The first issue at which we must look when determining the validity of abortion is that of morals. It is my belief that morals are not an abstract concept that differs from person to person, and place to place, but rather a concrete foundation which humanity as a whole has been falling away from for some time now. One of those concrete morals is the idea that it is always wrong to kill an innocent person. Part of this idea comes from my belief of the Bible as the literal and infallible Word of God, and that as such, it contains the moral framework that humanity is obligated to obey… or suffer the consequences.
One must next define personhood. Last week we talked about Mary Warren’s idea of personhood, stating that one must posses the following traits in order to be considered a “person”: consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, communication ability, and self-concept. Frankly, I find this definition extremely offensive, as it rules out people with moderate to severe mental and physical handicaps, the young, the elderly, and yet somehow manages to include animals instead. I would argue that biological requirements are all that is needed in order to be considered a “person.” Although, once again I must go back to the Bible as the framework for this belief; I am one that subscribes to the belief that man is above animals not only biologically, but spiritually- in that we possess a soul from the beginning of our formation. This idea of a soul lends me strong conviction that life begins at conception.
My next argument against abortion is that of potential. Since Roe vs. Wade assured women abortions in 1973, over 45 million abortions have been performed in the United States, meaning that we have missed out on 45 million chances to cure cancer, 45 million chances to invent new and useful products, 45 million chances to make a difference in the world. We are our own worst enemy in the fight to end diseases, economic downturns, and wars- we allow the destruction of generations of citizens that could do great things for our nation, and the world. This idea is lent more weight by the verse Jeremiah 5:1, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose. I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations.” We all have a purpose in life, and it may very well be that we have caused the downfall of our nation by allowing this abortion holocaust to continue.
The last argument I wish to make is that of constitutionality. Although advocates of abortion cite the Constitution as the protector of the “right” to abortion, it in fact does no such thing. In the decision on Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court gave the reason for their decision as coming from the 14th Amendment’s “right to privacy” clause. Looking at this clause, it is clear that the framer’s intent was not to allow women to kill their unborn children, but rather to protect innocent citizens from unlawful searches of their property and person during investigations. Plainly stated, the 14th Amendment is why police must obtain warrants before they can search your house.
But if we look at the Declaration of Independence, we can see the Founding Father’s true feelings on abortion. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” All men are created equal, not merely born equal, but are equal at conception; and all men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. THE RIGHT TO LIFE, THE RIGHT TO PURSUE HAPPINESS, THE RIGHT TO BE…