Amendment XXVIII: Why We Must Ban Abortion

Since 1945, abortion has claimed the lives of more than 1.5 billion children worldwide; since Roe V. Wade, more than 50 million babies have been aborted in the United States.

To put things in perspective, abortion has claimed more lives worldwide than the Bubonic Plague, the Mongol conquests of the early 13th and 14th centuries, World War I (including deaths caused by the Spanish flu), World War II, the Vietnam War, the American Civil War, the Russian Civil War, the Cambodian genocide, and the Rwandan genocide combined. Furthermore, roughly ten times more babies were aborted in the United States between the years 1967 and 2011 than Jews were killed during the Holocaust.

These numbers are uncomfortable for the pro-choice lobby, which has, for many years, supported the worst act of genocide history has ever seen. Nevertheless, the pro-choice community soldiers on, supporting the deaths of millions in exchange for what it calls “reproductive freedom.”

The reason I unilaterally oppose abortion lies not only in the deaths it has caused, but also in science, which does not, as pro-choicers would like to think, support the idea that fetuses are not human.

The pro-choice lobby bases its politics on the idea that banning abortion infringes on women’s rights, namely a woman’s right to choose whether or not her baby will live. This argument is based on the premise that a fetus is not fully human and ought not be treated as such under the law. Consequently, the pro-choice lobby argues that it’s legally permissible for a fetus to be destroyed because it does not have the same rights (or any rights, for that matter) as an out-of-womb child.

This argument’s fatal flaw is science. By definition, a fetus is a human being, albeit one that has not fully developed. As pointed out by the Association of Pro-Life Physicians, human beings do not give birth to, nor conceive, non-human organisms. In this sense, all fetuses must be human, for they are the product of human procreation.

Furthermore, evolution makes the pro-choice lobby’s proposed “fetus to human” transformation (the fetus does not become a human until it leaves the birth canal) scientifically impossible. To put it simply, most pro-choice advocates believe that a fetus (non-human) magically transforms into a human after leaving the birth canal. This new-born child is thenceforth subject to, and protected by, the law. He or she is also considered a human in the fullest sense, in that he or she receives all the legal rights due to a live human being.

This theory is problematic, however, because it is scientifically impossible for a member of one species to evolve into a member of another species in the matter of a single lifetime. That is to say, a fox, born as a fox, cannot evolve into a cat during the course of its lifetime. Therefore, by arguing that a fetus (which, according to the pro-choice lobby, is non-human, and thus does not belong to the species homo sapiens) transforms into a human (a member of the the species homo sapiens) in a matter of seconds, proponents of abortion defy science.

Upon losing the battle over “humanity,” pro-choicers turn to an argument concerning “personhood,” claiming that while a fetus is human, it is not a person (defined by the New Oxford American Dictionary as “a human being regarded as an individual”). The fetus’ lack of personhood, that is, individuality, stems from the fact that it is merely part of the female body. Therefore, because a fetus is part of the female body, and thus not an individual, it ought not be given the same rights as a human being, and thus its destruction is legally permissible.

This pro-choice argument is deeply flawed, however. The Association of Pro-Life Physicians points out the flaws with exceptional logic:

“Biologically, from the moment of conception, this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition. However, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it.  Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime.”

On top of that, the very idea that a human is not a person harkens to the days of slavery, when a group of human beings were classified as sub-human and stripped of their rights. Need I remind you that the Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, an escaped slave, was not a “person” and therefore had no rights before the law? In the same manner, the Supreme Court decided that a fetus, which is just as human as Mr. Scott, is not a person and therefore has no rights before the law.

In both cases, the pro-choice lobby falls flat. A fetus is clearly an individual person. Science simply does not support either of the aforementioned pro-choice theories.

Upon being wholly discredited by science (though many pro-choicers continue to justify their politics with the field), the pro-choice lobby turns to its least reliable argument yet, claiming that the rate of illegal abortion is just as high, if not higher than, the the rate of legal abortion. In doing so, pro-choice advocates hoped to scare pro-life advocates into accepting legalization as the lesser of two evils.

As with all pro-choice arguments, however, this claim is unreliable. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) exemplifies the unreliability of the lobby’s claim. Let me explain.

For  years, AGI has advocated for legalizing abortion in the developing world, estimating that illegal abortions claim millions of lives every year. As Dr. Peter Saunders points out in a LifeNews article, these estimates “have gone virtually unchallenged by both pro-life and pro-choice campaigners alike.”

Nevertheless, a number of epidemiologists began to doubt the truthfulness of AGI’s claims and decided to investigate further. In a 2012 study titled “Fundamental Discrepancies in Abortion Estimates and Abortion-Related Mortality: A Reevaluation of Recent Studies in Mexico with Special Reference to the International Classification of Diseases,” the authors discovered that AGI had grossly overestimated the amount of abortions in Mexico prior to legalization. Furthermore, as Dr. Saunders points out in his LifeNews article, “The researchers also discovered that AGI purposefully includes women who died from ectopic pregnancies, miscarriage and assault in their calculations of illegal abortion-related mortality, a case of intentional deception.” 

Lies like these are not uncommon. Organizations like AGI are clearly biased and their data is intentionally skewed in order to advance their agenda. Therefore, the data from these organizations is unreliable at best and downright wrong at worst.

Consequently, the “fear” argument spread by the pro-choice community is exceedingly unreliable. Comprehensive, reliable data supporting the community’s claims simply does not exist.

Despite contrary evidence, the pro-choice lobby continues to advance, unfazed by a constant stream of unreliable claims and false theories.

Pro-choice advocates argue that abortion should be legalized in order to protect mothers’ lives, though cases in which abortion is used to save life are exceedingly rare. In fact, Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood said in 1967 that “[t]oday it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” Dr. Landrum Shettles wrote something similar in a 1983 study, noting that “[l]ess than 1 percent of all abortions are performed to save the mother’s life.”

It seems that this argument, like all those before it, falls flat on its face. In the rare case that a mother can only be saved via the death of the child, doctors are required to act such that they do not purposely kill the baby, for doing so would result in the unjustifiable death of an innocent life. Such an allowance would mean that receiving chemo therapy, which could in turn kill the child, would not be considered abortive. The death would merely be an unintended consequence of the treatment.

Ever the persistent soldiers, pro-choicers plod on, arguing, for example, that in the cases of rape and incest, both of which are horrific crimes, a woman should be allowed to abort a child. In doing so, they ignore the fact that the child is human and that killing an innocent human being is never justified.

I could go on for days and never find a pro-choice argument that satisfies the laws of logic and nature. Humanity, personhood, “part of the mother,” rape, incest, illegal abortions: I’ve covered all of these issues and more. None support the pro-choice movement.

Fetuses are human individuals, plan and simple. They deserve to live just as much as you and I. It is our duty, therefore, to protect them from harm. Science, logic, and the law (14th Amendment) demand it. As human beings, we cannot sit idly by and watch as millions of our innocent brethren are murdered in cold blood. I know where I stand. Change awaits us. Stand up and fight, or live with the blood of millions on your hands.