January 22 was the 25th anniversary of one of the most controversial decisions ever made by the U.S. Supreme Court: Roe vs. Wade, the decision that made abortion universally legal in the United States. This decision is still hotly debated today. Abortion clinics are bombed, ballot measures are voted on, and protesters argue for both sides with equal passion. Needless to say, this subject is a touchy one to discuss. So it is with apprehension bordering on trepidation that I present to you my take on the subject. There is one simple fact that needs to be established before any further discussion of the topic of abortion can be conducted. Abortion is killing. Notice I said killing, not murder. I’m sure most of you have already established some kind of opinion as to whether you are going to continue reading this column (or any future ones by me) based on that simple three-word statement. But I ask that you bear with me, because your preconceived notion may be upset by other statements made throughout the course of this column. No matter what your opinion on abortion you have to agree that the future life of the being growing within the woman will not take place, therefore that person has, in effect, been killed. That is not a statement of opinion, it is an undeniable fact. Whether you believe that a fetus is not a human being until it is born or you believe that it is human at the moment of conception has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the future existence of that person has been destroyed by the abortion. Abortion advocates often argue that under the constitution, U.S. citizens are guaranteed the right to choose, therefore they wave the banner pro-choice, arguing that they are only acting to protect a person’s right to choose. They don’t think people should be able to impose their will upon others and make decisions for them. If you think about it though, this statement is hypocritical. Sure, the woman has the choice to discontinue her pregnancy, but the individual growing inside her, whether you believe it to be a person or not, has a future filled with choices, choices it will never be able to make. By having an abortion, that pro-choice advocate is going against the very core of their platform, the freedom to make one’s own choices, by making the ultimate choice for another person. In effect imposing their will upon every future choice that person would have made by rendering them unable to choose. Pro-choice advocates are not the only hypocrites in the abortion debate, however. Some pro-life advocates also cross the line and violate their own beliefs. Pro-lifers argue that no person has the right to decide to end another’s life by never allowing it to begin. But, there is a group within the pro-life camp who take their beliefs to an extreme. These are the individuals who express their extreme dislike of abortion by attacking the facilities in which it is performed with bombings, drive-by shootings, and the like. What is too often the result of these overzealous protests? Death. People die in bombings and shootings. It is rather absurd that the same people who believe killing an unborn child see fit to place others in a similar situation. Protesting killing with killing is idiocy. What kind of a message is a person sending with that form of protest? These people preach that killing is wrong, killing is evil, and then they turn around and kill someone who doesn’t feel the same way they do. Opponents of abortion also raise the point that history is made by people, and people have to be born to make history. Perhaps the individual destined to discover the cure for cancer or AIDS was aborted, and now those important discoveries will never be made. What if Thomas Jefferson had never been allowed to be born? Where would our precious nation be without the Declaration of Independence? Or what if Bill Gates had never been born? Where would I be without the computer I am typing this on right now? Of course there is a flip side to that particular argument as well. What if Adolf Hitler had never been born? Or Napoleon? Or even Saddam Hussein? As you can see, this argument really can’t go anywhere, both sides could conjure up a nearly endless list of individuals who were influential throughout the course of history who’s non-births would have affected our present. Personally, I believe that imposing one’s will upon another is wrong. Forcing someone to do something they do not wish to do is bad on any level, from convincing an adamant non-drinker to drink to committing rape. But I also believe that abortion is imposing upon the will of another by denying them the ability to grow up and make their own choices. I used to say that men had no place in the abortion debate, it’s the woman’s body and therefore her decision. If she decided to keep the child I would fulfill my obligation and be a father to the child. But then one day I started thinking about the other side of the coin. What if the woman decided that she wanted to have an abortion? I would not want to impose my will upon her to convince her that keeping the baby would be the best choice, especially given the pain associated with pregnancy and childbirth., but could I condone the killing of a child, especially my own? In the end the decision lies with the woman, she is the one that has to choose to walk into the clinic and have it done or not, and there is nothing I could do to stop her short of tying her to a chair for 9 months if she wished to do so. But I know I would argue for keeping the child, even if it was to be given up for adoption. I am a firm believer in a person’s right to choose, no one has the right to make a decision for another. But I cannot and will not condone the killing of a human being, and as I stated earlier, that is what abortion is, the deprivation of future life. I guess that places me firmly in the middle of the pro-life camp, right where my Christian upbringing says I should be.
Navigation
Back to Published
Home
I hate people who talk too much!
