The Bush Administration has said that states may classify a developing fetus as an "unborn child" eligible for government health care, giving low-income women access to prenatal care. The plan will make a fetus eligible for health care under the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Because these programs are aimed at kids, it does not typically cover parents or pregnant women. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson cited well-established data on the importance of prenatal care in explaining the proposal. "Prenatal care for women and their babies is a crucial part of the medical care every person should have through the course of their life. Prenatal services can be a vital, lifelong determinant of health, and we should do everything we can to make this care available for all pregnant women." The new policy will not take effect until after it is published in the Federal Register and the department considers public comments.
This has set abortion rights supporters up in arms over the matter. They see the action as a backdoor attempt to establish the fetus as a person with legal standing, which could make it easier to criminalize abortion.
What is both interesting and sad to me about these debates and the stance of pro-abortion groups is the hypocrisy of their arguments when compared to the actions in their own lives when they decide to have a child.
From personal experiences with friends and acquaintances who are strongly pro-choice, I have observed that once they or their spouse becomes pregnant, and it is something they desired, it is no longer just a fetus to them. In some cases, even if the pregnancy was unplanned, they still often undergo a metamorphosis in behavior and attitude towards "the fetus."
The same, hard core people who once told me that a fetus, "is not a person, it's just a collection of cells," suddenly become very protective and caring about their particular fetus, and resort to calling it a "baby" instead. They show friends and relatives pictures of the ultrasound, proudly displaying their growing child. Sometimes it becomes important to find out the sex of the baby, as they want to know all they can about their baby. They begin planning for the child, preparing a room for the baby to stay in, and buying infant clothing, toys and needful things. The baby becomes a big focus in their life. They pick out names for the child, and in everything they do, they seem to acknowledge this fetus is a person. They begin to love the child before it's even born. These actions seem peculiar to me, as they reflect a different tone from their usual rhetoric. You will never hear these people call their own baby a "fetus."
My point is, the scientific, medical and legal classification of whether a fetus is a person or not should not change based on whether it is wanted or not. It either is, or is not a person.
Another point of hypocrisy is that even though pro-abortion groups and people fight to make sure an unborn child is not legally recognized as a person, most will however, advocate that any man who kills a pregnant woman be indited on two counts of murder rather than just one. This has been done many times in court cases with much success. I can bet you this, if any pro-abortionist were to have his own pregnant wife murdered, he would seek the charge of murder for his unborn child. This seems to me to be a contradiction to their supposed beliefs concerning abortion.
I believe the bottom line in this debate is not the scientific, medical, or religious status of a fetus, but rather, a matter of convenience versus inconvenience. We don't like to be inconvenienced, as pleasure seeking is one of the most important pursuits we have in America. Our focus is largely a selfish one. If a baby is inconvenient at the time, then it becomes convenient to make it a non-person. If the baby is convenient to our wishes and desires, then it is a person.
The legalization of abortion was bolstered by three main arguments. I would like to question the logic behind these arguments one by one. First I'll list them, then debate each point.
1. Because a fetus cannot survive on its own it is classified as a parasite, rather than a person. It is nothing more than a collection of cells sucking nutrients from the host in order to become a person eventually.
2. If abortion is made illegal it robs a woman of the right to choose what to do with her own body. It robs her of her personal liberties.
3. If abortion is made illegal, women will have them anyway in back streets and dark alleys by shady non-professionals, and this will be very dangerous for the women involved. To keep abortion safe, we must keep it legal.
Argument One: "Because a fetus cannot survive on its own it is classified as a parasite, rather than a person. It is nothing more than a collection of cells sucking nutrients from the host in order to become a person eventually."
I use to debate pro-abortionists on a regular basis, and when I first heard this line of argument it made me sick to my stomach. It is this sort of argument that was used to justify many of the evil acts the Nazis committed in WWII. If a fetus cannot be classified as a person with rights because it cannot survive on its own, and is therefore only a "parasite," then could we not classify senior citizens who are no longer able to work or take care of themselves the same way? How about people with mental retardation, or people with various levels of physical handicaps. This is what Hitler declared, and so they killed off thousands of their own non-Jewish German citizens who were in institutions, old age homes, and hospitals because they were a non-productive parasite on society.
The illogic of this argument for why a fetus cannot be classified as a person with rights is simply astounding, as a newborn cannot survive on its own either. It cannot protect itself, it cannot take care of itself or even feed itself. If you were to abandon a newborn to perish on its own, you will go to jail for murder. Even one, two, or three-year-olds cannot survive on their own. If this argument was valid, then should we extend abortion rights up to the age of 5 years old maybe? I know some parents who would like to extend it up through the teenage years, perhaps that would make them behave.
Perhaps some pro-abortionist would argue this is not the same thing because they are talking about a fetus that not only depends on someone else to survive, but it's body literally cannot function unattached from the mother, depending on her for many of its biological functions. In answer to that, I would point out that there are people who cannot survive without an iron lung to breathe for them, or without a heart transplant or artificial heart of some kind. Many thousands depend upon dialysis machines to perform the function their kidneys are unable to. Therefore, this cannot be the determining factor for whether a fetus is a person or not.
A developing child not ready to be born yet, if removed, would simply be found outside of the proper environment it needs to survive in. This doesn't mean it isn't a person. I challenge any adult to remove their clothing and go outside in the middle of winter and try to survive a few days. Most would perish within hours. You need your houses and warmth to survive, but this does not make you a non-person.
Because of these facts, argument number one cannot be used to defend abortion. It is illogical, absurd and even dangerous thinking.
Argument Two: "If abortion is made illegal it robs a woman of the right to choose what to do with her own body. It robs her of her personal liberties."
The illogic of this particular argument is that it is not an argument at all. Because a law infringes on someone's ability to do something, does not justify the act they desire to do, or give them the right to do it, particularly if that act is wrong or infringes on the rights of another.
If argument number two were valid, then drugs should not be made illegal. After all, it infringes on a person's right to do with their body what they want. In fact, this argument makes more sense in the case of drugs than it does with abortion. At least in the case of drugs, if the person is an adult and simply utilizing it for their own personal use, the only human they directly hurt is themselves. However, in the case of abortion, the supposed "right" of a women to do with her own body as she chooses, affects not just the woman, but another life form developing inside of her. Her choice may be in direct conflict with the rights of another life.
Often when I hear about a woman's right to choose, I often think to myself, "what about the right of the child not to be aborted?" Let's ask the fetus, "Do you want to be aborted?" Undoubtedly, the answer, if it could speak, would be no. Ask any person on the street, "Do you wish your mother would have aborted you?" Generally the answer would be no. Most people want to live.
Even though a fetus cannot speak yet, it does seem to give us an answer to the question, "do you want to be aborted," as we know for a medical fact that a fetus will retract in pain, and will make a feeble attempt to resist the procedure. It clearly does not want to be ripped to shreds and pulled out of its mother's body. In many ways it is communicating its desire then.
A newborn cannot speak either, but it does display emotions, just as the fetus does. A newborn is still developing, it does not see clearly, it cannot walk, it's brain is still developing, it is not yet a fully functioning human being, but it is a human being nonetheless and extended rights and legal protection. It seems to me a slippery slope of illogic to recognize a newborn as a person, but an unborn child as not being a person.
When does a fetus become a baby anyway? And who is qualified to make that decision? When is it a person? When does it have rights? What makes this determination? Is a fetus a person after three months? After six months? After seven months? What has changed about the fetus from one month to the next that we can make this determination with any certainty? Is it just that it has developed a little more?
There have been children born extremely premature that survived and grew up to be beautiful productive people. Why are they considered people, when others at a later stage of development can be aborted and not considered a person? It seems to me it is simply a matter of whether you are wanted or not. This cannot be the basis of whether an unborn child is a person with rights or not, obviously, so we disguise the truth with other logically flawed arguments. If a child who is wanted is afforded rights and protection, then an unwanted one should also be afforded the same legal status. Either they are, or are not a person. Part of the reason for laws is to protect the helpless, and defend those who cannot defend themselves.
Using argument number two as a basis for keeping abortion legal, is a little like someone saying that laws against murder are wrong because they infringe upon a person's right to kill someone. Simply because there are those who would like the freedom to choose to murder, does not mean murder should be made legal. Yet this is the same argument used by pro-abortion groups to legalize the ending of a one life, to ensure the personal liberties of another.
One particular friend and great debater use to say, "You're right to extend your fist ends at my nose." He used this argument to show how we ought to legalize drugs, prostitution etc, because government should not be in the business of limiting people's personal freedoms. So long as what you were doing did not inhibit the personal freedoms of others, you should be allowed the liberty to do whatever you wanted. I tend to agree in many ways with this trend of thought. God gave us our agency after all, and satan tries to take it away, so therefore, we ought to have the liberty to choose evil. However, we also have the liberty to protect ourselves through law and order, from those who would seek to inflict evil upon us. This friend of mine is also an avid supporter of abortion rights. But as he always said, "You're right to extend your fist ends at my nose," I would point out that an unborn child has a nose, and perhaps a woman's right to choose ends at the child's right to live.
Argument Three: "If abortion is made illegal, women will have them anyway in back streets and dark alleys, and by shady non-professionals, and this will be dangerous for the women involved. To keep abortion safe, we must keep it legal."
Again, this argument has absolutely NO bearing on whether or not the intentional act of killing an unborn child should be legal or not. It has no bearing on whether or not a fetus is a person with rights. In fact, it really is no argument at all, and if it were, it would be a dangerous and silly one at that.
Since when do we allow possible immoral acts against other human beings to be made legal simply because the people will do it anyway? People continue to murder and steal. Should we make these crimes legal? Perhaps we should even make them safe. After all, people are going to rob convenience stores and homes. We don't seem to be able to stop these kinds of crimes from happening. Perhaps we should pass a law that homeowners, store owners and police officers cannot own guns, and cannot do anything to hinder the robber so that the criminals don't get hurt? This makes just about as much sense as the argument for why we cannot make abortion illegal.
If the act is immoral and robs a human being of their life, then it should be illegal, end of story. Therefore, if a fetus is a person, then it has rights, and those rights must be protected even if some women will seek to have it performed illegally. No matter the law, there are always going to be people who want to break that law for various reasons. This is not an excuse to make an illegal act legal, but in fact bears witness that there is a need for that law and the enforcement of it.
Closing Arguments:
It appears to me that none of the arguments generally provided by pro-abortionists have any logical merit whatsoever. Furthermore, it appears to me that the driving force for people trying their best to maintain a "right" to have an abortion is no more than a cover for their true motives. Those motives are "convenience" and "selfishness."
People want to have sex - (an act used for creating offspring) - for the purpose of recreational pleasure. Whether you believe in God or only in evolutionary nature, the conclusion is the same, the biological purpose for sex is procreation. This is not to say that sex cannot be had for pleasure, but the end result of sex, if nature is allowed to take its course unhindered, is children. Our drive to seek pleasure without consequences has led us to the arguments for abortion.
Men and women both have choices, they have the right to choose whether or not they want to engage in certain acts together. When you choose to have sex, you are saying that you are willing to accept the possibility that you could get pregnant. If a pregnancy is the end result, it is simply the result of the natural purpose behind that act. Whether you wanted to get pregnant or not, or are prepared to deal with the consequences of that pregnancy have nothing to do with the moral question before us. Is an unborn child a person?
Personal Testimony
Many years ago before I gave my life to Christ, and while attending college, I was a pro-abortionist. I believed that a woman had a right to abort a fetus, arguing that if it was done early enough that it was just a collection of cells, and that it did no harm as the fetus wasn't really a baby yet. I would argue with my religious family about it, much to their consternation. I really did believe this with all my passion. One thing I knew for sure at that time was that if my girlfriend were ever to become pregnant I would want her to get an abortion.
One night I had a dream.
In this dream I am sitting in the audience of a medical conference. The room is very elegant, and the presentation device the doctor is using is very high tech. Rather than a regular flat screen, he is using a screen with some type of holographic projection. Everything in this dream was very surreal, the sound, the colors, the air around me, everything is profoundly alive, like as in other spiritual dreams I have experienced. I am, however, totally unaware that I am in a dream as I listen to the presenter.
He is speaking on the medical procedure of aborting a fetus. There is a patient on the other side of the conference room on a gurney, surrounded by doctors and nurses, who is evidently going to have this procedure done before us as a demonstration. The holographic screen shows the audience a three-dimensional picture of the inside of this woman’s womb, and is focused on the area where a fetus can clearly be seen.
Our presenter, the doctor, explains the procedure, as it is being performed, in a very dry, matter of fact tone, which leads me to believe this is nothing more than a simple medical procedure. I see an instrument approach the fetus under the microscopic view of the hologram. The tool had a look similar to a pair of tweezers or tongs, which were designed to grab hold of the fetus and extract it from the womb. The doctor continues to talk about the safety and simplicity of the procedure, speaking of the fetus as if it were some sort of growth or a bit of cancer that needed to be removed, using a lot of medical jargon as he explains the procedure.
Then the instrument on the display grabs hold of one of the legs of the fetus, and on the screen, much to my horror, I see what looks like the fetus reacting in great pain, even recoiling from the instrument. I had the impression that normally the instrument would grab higher and crush the fetus, but it was only able to take hold of one leg as it pulled down and away, ripping the leg off of the fetus. The fetus is clearly reacting to the pain, and then suddenly, it begins to grow. Imagine a fetus growing at approximately two weeks of growth per second, and that is what I saw as the metallic instrument clamped upon the fetus again and began to tear at it, and then the woman gave birth all at once to a fully developed baby. It falls to the floor, mangled and bloody and then continued to grow, seemingly at a rate of growth of one year per second, and then stops as it becomes a little girl, approximately five years of age.
By this time I was half way to the other side of the conference room, screaming at the doctors to stop. I was horrified by the procedure, and realized that this fetus was more than a collection of cells, it was a person, a little baby. I suddenly loved that baby like it was my own child being put to death. When I got to the girl, she had been transformed into what this baby was destined to be, a beautiful little girl, precious in my sight. She bore scars from the procedure and had an artificial limb where her leg would have been. In this dream, she was suddenly my own daughter. I knew she was mine, and I had done this to her. My heart broke in a thousand pieces and yet I rejoiced that she was alive. She smiled at me, and I took her hand and we walked out of the conference as hundreds of onlookers stared in unbelief.
Then I awoke, sitting straight up in bed, sweat covering my body. I immediately swore to God that I would never, ever, have a child of mine aborted. I had that night, a complete change of mind on the topic. Previous to that night, I had my mind completely made up on the subject, and now I would never be the same. I repented of my attitude towards this subject and resolved to never support an act of abortion in any way.