Killing of the Innocent

Killing of the Innocent

One of the most heavily debated and an unresolved issue of modern times is the horrific process of abortion. Whether or not one is Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, the supporters are very opinionated and continue to relentlessly defend their side; "undecided" practically does not exist. Despite some beliefs, a woman's egg is a human life prior to fertilization, abortions are done in extremely dangerous and harmful ways, and a woman suffers extreme psychological and physical effects after an abortion. Due to these facts, abortions should be deemed illegal.

An abortion is an unethical practice. Abortion should be illegal, except in a few rare exceptions. There are many reasons for this belief, one of course being my Christianity. I believe that abortion is unsupported in the Bible, and furthermore I believe there is actually scriptural evidence that abortion is considered evil. My conviction about the killing of an unborn child transcends my religious beliefs. I feel that in the end, only God can judge. Even non religious people will accept the arguments I show.

I think all rational people would agree with me that killing innocent human beings is immoral. My argument here will primarily be concerned with showing that unborn embryos are in fact human beings.

A sperm is life. An egg is life. "Life" in this term does not demand our concern. We aren't concerned with scratching our arm because we don't want to kill skin cells. Humans, however, are quite important, and are deserving of protection and respect. Some say that a sperm and an egg combined and a sperm and egg separated are essentially the same. I find this to be untrue. There is a very important distinction between the two.

When a sperm and egg cell combine, it becomes something fundamentally different. It becomes a human being in its early stages. The embryo has the information necessary to develop into a fully-functioning human being like you or me. In addition, the embryo is already in the process of developing into a human like you or me. The only essential difference between the embryo and a full-grown human is that they are in different stages of life.

If a pro-abortionist can come up with a better distinction for the beginning of humanity, then it is possible that abortion is a moral act, at least in the secular sense.

There are a number of unscholarly arguments used by unsophisticated abortion advocates. Here is a partial list of such arguments:

1. The embryo doesn't even look human; it's like a limp fish.

2. The embryo is so tiny it's just a speck.

3. The embryo has a tail, gill slits, and other animal features. It's not really a human yet.

It is almost needless to say that such arguments are invalid. Since when has protection by the law been determined by looks or size? Are people that look like monkeys unprotected? What about midgets? Obviously, the physical appearance of the embryo is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not abortion is a moral action.

Another common pro-abortion argument is that, since the child is dependent upon the mother, the mother has the right to kill the embryo/fetus.

This criterion has disastrous implications. Consider Siamese Twins, John and Fred. John is the dominant one and doesn't require Fred to live but Fred requires John in order to live. Does John have the right to kill Fred? I would think not.

It is unclear as to whether or not dependence ends at birth anyways. Sometimes the mother is the only person who can help the baby survive. Nobody would then wish to argue that the mother has the right to kill the infant because the infant is "dependent" on her. Either way, it is obviously not true that the mother has the right to kill the unborn merely because the unborn is dependent upon the mother.

A whole different class of arguments deals not with whether or not the fetus is a human, but with the supposed