AbortionEssay Preview: AbortionReport this essayAbortionMuch has changed in 25 years. Back then the central question that we argued was whether or not this was a human life. This argument has basically been answered. Yes, ultrasound and medical technology have gone a long way toward helping us. Nevertheless, an immense amount of credit goes to each of you reading this and to all of those whom you have helped to train, for we have educated a nation and taught them that this is truly a human life from conception. This question is not really in contention any longer.
The other major argument – that this is only a religious issue – still surfaces and is still thrown at us, but now with much less force. As medical developments have proven the humanity of the unborn, so parallel developments have shown this to be a human rights, a civil rights issue to more and more people.
Other arguments have fallen by the wayside. “Remember these are unwanted pregnancies who will grow to be unwanted and battered children.” That argument is essentially dead as, after 25 years, we now have, not a decrease in battered children, but an explosion of battered children and child abuse. Abortion clearly has not solved this problem.
“There are too many people in the world. The population explosion mandates abortion to control population.” For those who will listen, this argument no longer is valid, although it remains center stage, however, for Al Gore, the Clinton State Department and at the United Nations. It certainly is not valid for the US or any Western nation. With only one or two exceptions, Western birth rates are well below replacement level. The problem in the West is not too many people but rather not enough babies being born and far too many old people to take care of. Underdeveloped nations are moving rapidly in this same direction, so this argument, at least in the west, is no longer relevant.
The Global Warming Debate
There is the “climate change” issue. While it isn’t technically a global warming problem, for many, the issue is just “how much money is going into warming the world”? A global warming is an investment and not a political or political agenda issue. The global warming issue should be a matter of “how much money is going into warming the world.” This argument focuses on people who are in the business of doing business with global warming. So how much of Al Gore’s income is going into business with global warming? Well, as reported, Gore is making $100K, and in his book he quotes someone who said that $30k was just the number of dollars he makes to raise business from the “green industry” through the Green Revolution campaign. But that’s a far cry from the sum he’s actually making.
The idea behind this is that Gore is making money by “bruising the money from green activism” because of his position in the Koch Brothers’ anti-sustainable corporations and so forth. In a recent paper he stated:
With less than 5% of all U.S. carbon emissions, a reduction in the amount of energy created by burning fossil fuels “would be the net price reduction associated with the elimination of 70 million new jobs, $500 billion higher than at the end of 2010.” Gore’s “decarbonization” of the economy is based on the fact that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing energy intensity, and to reduce emissions of carbon by lowering fossil fuel emissions.
In fact, a reduction of one percentage point in energy intensity and a reduction of about $30 trillion in carbon dioxide emissions would be a very significant economic boost. This figure does not take into account the amount of fossil fuel added per kilowatt-hour. This “global warming” argument has nothing to do with those 2 billion additional dollars of carbon dioxide emissions.
I mentioned recently that the Obama administration is investing at least $3.1 billion in energy initiatives to reduce carbon emissions by 2030. Not only that; the administration has also pledged not to exceed $300 trillion in clean energy spending to reduce CO2 emissions. In fact, as the New York Times reported in a December 2013 report on the Obama administration, “the number of U.S. households that get green energy has grown by 20 trillion from 2014 to 2020. New research from George Mason University at the University of California says we’re “picking the fights right now” over how to reduce the demand and consumption of fossil fuels, particularly energy. That’s because the cost of a car will have increased in tandem with the costs of heating it and lighting it. And fossil fuels have been increasingly
We said it would lead to euthanasia, and they laughed at us. And so, 25 years later its leading to euthanasia. Happily, we are in the middle of a heartening move away from assisted suicide, which is euthanasia. We await its long-term outcome, but this is no longer a distant threat, and the relation of abortion to euthanasia is increasingly apparent to many people.
The argument for abortion for an assault rape pregnancy continues and remains approved by two-thirds of our citizens. The answer here is education, pointing out that there are only 200-300 such pregnancies a year in the whole US – that only half of these women seek abortion, and that her chief complaint is not being pregnant but how others treat her. Our central answer of course is that we oppose killing an innocent baby for the crime of his father. Sadly, politicians continue to put this exception in law.
Their Remaining Argument – Our AnswerTheir only remaining argument has sadly been extremely successful. As they put it – “The single most important question is, does the woman have a right to choose and keep the government out of this private matter?” For them, no other consideration trumps this argument. Well, yes, something else does, and the rising tide of our answer to pro-choice is the successful use of “Why Cant We Love Them Both”.
Back in 1984, the Parliament in Portugal legalized abortion – but in only narrow circumstances. It allowed it when a womans health was at “serious risk”, until 12 weeks for rape pregnancies, and until 16 weeks for fetal handicap. Nothing has changed since that time except that other Western European nations progressively passed more permissive laws
The fetus is not a human, just a mass of tissueAbortion is safer than childbirth.Every child should be a wanted child.The number of abortions is relatively small.Nobody has the right to impose their morals on me.A woman should be able to control her own body.Abortion must be kept legal, especially for all the rape and incest pregnancies.If abortion is outlawed women will be forced to go to back-alley abortion clinics.Aborting unwanted children reduces the number of abused children.We need to remember that we are overpopulating the planet.The medical arguments against abortion are compelling. For example, at conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. To say that the developing baby is no different from the mothers appendix is scientifically inaccurate. A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it. A human being has 46 chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes). Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A trained geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. But that same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being.
Another set of medical arguments against abortion surround the definition of life and death. If one set of criteria have been used to define death, could they also be used to define life? Death used to be defined by the cessation of heartbeat. A stopped heart was a clear sign of death. If the cessation of heartbeat could define death, could the onset of a heartbeat define life? The heart is formed by the 18th day in the womb. If heartbeat was used to define life, then nearly all abortions would be outlawed.
Physicians now use a more rigorous criterion for death: brain wave activity. A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days. Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions.
Opponents to abortion also raise the controversial issue of fetal pain. Does the fetus feel pain during abortion? The evidence seems fairly clear and consistent. Consider this statement made in a British medical journal: “Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away. Try sticking an 8-week-old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away. A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful