A License To Kill…
A license to kill is exactly what abortion is. Supposedly, it is the woman’s “right” to choose to kill an unborn child. What about our unalienable rights:Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or the pursuit of all who threaten it, if you’re in the Navy)? Ah, the argument is that an unborn child doesn’t have any rights, because the baby isn’t even alive yet. What would happen if a male kicked a pregnant female in the chest, and terminated the baby? Rights?
So yes, the main argument for abortion is that it is the womans right, because it is her body. What about a woman’s rights? Does she have the right to use cocaine? How about prostitution? Suicide? What if a man claimed rape was ok because it was his body? The logical argument against that would be “But you are affecting someone else’s body also”. What about abortion? You are affecting an unborn child’s life drastically in that case.
Another common argument for abortion is that if a child is going to be born into a poverty stricken family, abortion should be an option because the child’s life would be miserable. Look at statistics, and I’ll probably say yes, this is true, a poor child will have a much harder life than a child born into riches with a Silver spoon. This doesn’t mean we should kill the child before it is born. After all, a child can be born into a rich family, and in his teen years, get involved in drugs, alcohol, etc, and permanently make the rest of his life miserable as well. Anyone remember Scott Peterson? He was wealthy, killed his wife and unborn child, and now sits on death row. Just because a person has more money doesn’t mean that they are going to be a better, more successful person than a person born into poverty. Some examples of people born into poor families are Charles Dickens, Beethoven, and Oprah Winfrey.
There will always be some people that use rape and incest as an excuse for abortion. Although these circumstances create questionable cases, I ask you if a baby born from rape is any less important than any other baby? While it is more likely that in this case the baby would be a more unwanted baby, it still would be very possible for the mother to love the baby. It is also true that only approximately 1% of all abortions are from rape or incest, so shouldn’t that fact end the argument for rape of incest legalizing abortion?
On the side of mothers asking for abortion, their arguments are usually found somewhere between not being able to afford the child, not wanting the child, not being able to care for the child, not being mature enough for the child, etc. While it is true that these women shouldn’t be pregnant, should we kill the child because of it?
I know that all this makes sense; I also know that it is very unlikely that I will change anyone’s opinion. But ask yourself this: Should killing an innocent, unborn child be allowed as a convenience in our lives?
Explore posts in the same categories: Abortion
The Conservative Way 
July 4, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Hey.
Killing an innocent, unborn child shouldn’t be allowed as a convenience in our lives because abortion is murder, and it is unconventional to, with intent, murder anyone or anything, even if it is a small baby or even a small animal. (Unknowingly stepping over a small, microscopic bug in the ground is NOT murder. Even if you knew, you would not be able to prevent such from occuring, if at all)
In fact, how many mothers in the world think that they actually, seriously, honestly, fully want to and are committed to abortion because of any of those things that you listed? Very few are willing to actually do so.
My point is that an innocent, unborn child has nothing to do with the underlying cause of the abortion, if at all, and even if it did, it would be relatively easy to get past, without murder.
– Kyle Brooks
me@kbrooks.ath.cx
July 5, 2007 at 10:49 am
Good post. I have linked to it at http://jbscorner.blogspot.com/2007/07/abortion.html
July 5, 2007 at 11:54 am
Hey Matt,
Abortion is a very difficult topic, and one on which my views are more ambiguous and difficult to express than others, however I’ll do my best to justify my position as you have yours. I feel that the rights granted (as you put it Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) do not apply to fetuses, since they are not people. To me, the issue of abortion does not come down to religion, or justifying murder, because fetuses are not yet human. To me, abortion is a woman’s right to control her own body (after all, the fetus is completely reliant on her for life.) And we aren’t talking about a conscious being. What is at stake is an undeveloped mass of multiplying cells. It can not think, feel, speak, breathe, eat or drink. In many cases an abortion is necessary for the well being of the mother, the future of the child, or both. Incest and rape are horrible crimes, and being forced to carry the result of this crime is inhumane to the child’s mother. Raising a child that is not wanted isn’t fair to the child. And while many poor children grow up to do just fine, there is a difference between growing up in poverty and growing up with parents not fit to care for you. But so far these are standard explanations that probably seem like evil liberal babble, huh?
Well, here’s something else for you. If we are all created equal, and we all have “inalienable” rights, then where does the death penalty fall. From your post you seem not at all uneasy about Scott Peterson’s inalienable rights being taken away. So is murder only OK when you’re the “good guy?” What if you think you’re the good guy but other people don’t agree?
July 5, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I would also add that I find your use of the word convenience manipulative. Abortion is in no way a convenience. Abortion is a drastic step that is necessary in some cases for the emotional well-being of the mother, the benefit of the child, or the health of the mother. Should the “rights” of a mass of cells be held before the rights of a woman? Should we expect a woman not capable of giving birth to give her life for the benefit of a child? Should we expect a woman to sacrifice a year of her life carrying a child as a result of a rape? Should she then have to care for or put up for adoption the child of her rapist? Abortion is not a convenience or a luxury, nor should it be taken lightly. But abortion is a necessity in looking out for women and for society. And, if you don’t think abortion helps society, give this a chance.
July 5, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Matt – great insight.
July 5, 2007 at 8:34 pm
that’s a heavy post…a good one
July 6, 2007 at 6:29 am
Couldn’t agree more with your article. Abortion is murder and should not be allowed. Liberals would argue against the death sentence for even the worst of war criminals and murderers, but think that it’s okay to execute an unborn innocent. What is the world coming to?
July 7, 2007 at 12:54 am
@Will Cavanagh
You said: “I feel that the rights granted (as you put it Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) do not apply to fetuses, since they are not people…fetuses are not yet human”
What are you talking about, dude? If a fetus isn’t a person then when does it become a person? I have known children to be born 3 and 4 months premature and they survive and grow to be a person just like you and me.
An unborn child doesn’t become a person after 9 months of gestation. An unborn child is a person from conception and spends 9 months developing so that it can survive outside the womb. Just like a child spends 16+ years developing so that it can survive outside the home.
You need to use your brain, Will. Just because a 6 month old child cannot speak like you and me doesn’t mean he is not a person. And the same exact logic applies to an unborn child. You are a sick individual and you need to get help before you hurt yourself.