OPINION: Abortion: a word that kills

6
1095
Photo credit: Mark Nelson

Next to legalization of gay marriage and Second Amendment rights, the definition and regulation of fetal life is a big-ticket item for conservatives around the country and there is a reason for it. However under-covered this issue is in media, it is something that affects about 730,322 unborn children and at least that many women yearly.

In 2011, the Center for Disease Control received reports of 730,322 legally induced abortions. This translates to almost 14 abortions per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44. For every 1,000 live births, 219 unborn children were aborted.

Unfortunately not all abortions are regulated, so there are others that remain undocumented yet affected.

Millions of people in this country believe that life begins at conception. The origin of each human life, in body and soul, at conception is important to the moral definition of abortion.

At the moment of conception, even if the human is a single cell or a jumble of unrecognizable cells, it is still living. Protecting life beginning at conception is the only way to protect life.

Recently, an anti-abortion group released a video where a Planned Parenthood doctor discussed the funds received from tissue donation and the practices involved to retrieve the most viable tissue.

The edited version of the video portrays Planned Parenthood as making a profit from the tissue; however, in the full version, it is explained that the funds are reimbursement for the transport costs.

It is good to know that Planned Parenthood is not breaking a law in that regard, making a profit on the fetal tissues, based on the information provided; however, it is unclear if there are other laws that Planned Parenthood is breaking.

The more pressing issue this video brings up is the practice used to retrieve the fetus in a viable way, a way that it can be used as “tissue samples.”

What was striking about the video, which I located on CNN’s website, was how nonchalant the doctor was when talking about extracting the fetus. She made it clear that the fetus had a heart, lungs, liver and other functioning body parts that she did not want to damage during the extraction.

How are we allowing the blatant termination of life? These fetuses clearly have or had functioning body parts which keep it alive inside its carrier.

In addition to having living body parts, the science of embryology has shown that the genetic composition of humans is shaped during fertilization. The textbook, “Molecular Biology,” even explains that genetic material is “the very basis of life itself,” according to Just Facts.

From this information, it is clear to see that life begins at conception, fertilization, the combination of genetic material. This definition shows that the jumble of genetic material is life, thus it should be illegal to kill inside the womb.

Not only does this eight-letter word (abortion) literally define the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, it defines the lives of many people after the termination process is complete.

Side effects of having an abortion are not just limited to losing a life you created. The American Pregnancy Association explains that emotional and psychological effects post-abortion are more common among women than physical side effects.

Potential side effects, according to the American Pregnancy Association, may include; regret, anger, guilt, shame, sense of loneliness or isolation, loss of self confidence, nightmares, relationship issues, suicidal thoughts, eating disorders, depression and anxiety.

Of all these side effects regret, guilt and shame seem to go together. Why do we allow a majority of women to have the option to feel this way if we could easily put a stop to it?

It’s easy to feel guilt and regret in other areas of your life. We frequently regret not going out with our friends, or we feel guilty having a night in when we could have seen some old high school cohorts. This, though, is something that can not and should not be compared with the guilt of abortion.

Not going out one night does not have the life long effects of terminating the life of your child. In the first scenario you miss out on one night, where in the second scenario you miss out on a whole life, possibly the child who could create the cure for cancer, a future politician who would put the government back into shape or an amazing father or mother to another equally as brilliant and gifted child.

Women should not be faced with the decision nor have the opportunity to be coerced into terminating their child’s life. This is not only in the interest of the living child within them, this is also not in the interest for the emotional and mental stability of the woman.

It’s my opinion that unborn children are people too, so why are we killing them?

Advertisement
  • Gobucs

    Wow great argument 10/10 pro-lifer now

  • Gobucs

    I wonder if women have psychological side effects because they are shamed and called murderers?
    Also of note, a cow has lungs, heart, etc and is no doubt alive but there’s no problem killing and eating them? It’s quite a leap to say it’s a human at conception.

    • Jer

      It’s no stretch to say a fetus with a human mother and a human father is not a cow.

    • Kaitlyn Sterneker

      A difference between moral sense of human vs genetic sense of human. In ‘Social Ethics’ by Mappes and Zembaty, there is a wonderful discussion about the morality of abortion and what makes the difference between your suggestion of a human and a cow which is: consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity to communicate and the presence of self-concepts and self-awareness in both individual and racial capacities.

      By your reasoning, it would be no stretch to assume that any genetic tissue with those factors (lungs, heart, etc) should be sacred and life preserving, yet not many people have an issue in killing birds, deer, seeing roadkill, fish, as well as any number of insects, snakes, mice, etc.

  • kitteh

    “Not going out one night does not have the life long effects of terminating the life of your child.”

    Are you suggesting women make the decision to abort as easily as they make the decision whether to “go out” tonight?

    “It is good to know that Planned Parenthood is not breaking a law in that
    regard, making a profit on the fetal tissues, based on the information
    provided; however, it is unclear if there are other laws that Planned
    Parenthood is breaking.”

    How is this relevant? Can you define some of those laws they might be breaking and also state why you think they are breaking them?

  • ProDontKnow

    What about a woman that has been raped? Should she be forced to carry to term? How about a woman who is likely to die as a result of her pregnancy based on current research/evidence? Should she be forced to carry if she is not willing to risk her life? Not all women die when doctors say they are at high risk; there is no certainty. Accuracy will improve in the future, but we can only act in the present.

    I don’t have the answers. I think you should have a stance on these tough questions before you try to tell women not to have an abortion under any circumstance.