The Right Track
Published: Friday, October 22, 2004
Updated: Monday, April 19, 2010 00:04
The Right Track Dustin Siggins
If I were to guess, I would say that many of my faithful readers would claim to be against murder. In fact, however, were I to poll a few dozen of you, at least half would admit to supporting it to a varying degree. Of course, you may not realize that what you are agreeing with is murder. Sometimes unavoidable-look at World War II or the urban fighting in Iraq today-murder is horrible. Yet, we have allowed it in this country for the last 31 years. I am concentrating on this brand of murder, abortion, done to the most innocent and helpless individuals in this nation.
Simply put, I am writing this week to defend the millions of unborn babies in danger of an unjust death, and to put to shame those who defend the 40 million-plus slaughters of such vulnerable, feeble human children over the last three decades.
There are five primary arguments a friend and I decided were used in defending abortion. They are: saving the life of a mother, the mother is raped, handicaps post-birth, raising the child will be too expensive, and "it was an accident." Some of these are legitimate and honorable, such as saving the life of the mother or wanting to prevent a child being born with a handicap; however, these and others pale in comparison to the simple facts about abortion.
Let us look at each argument individually. Yes, saving the life of a mother is a grand idea; saving someone's life always is. The baby, however, did not attack the mother. The mother chose to have intercourse, and thus potentially put her life in danger. This is not to say that if the mother's life is in peril she should not be saved, or that the death of the child must be averted; quite the opposite, in fact. The mother's life should be given the highest priority of assistance. I merely contend that nobody, not even a doctor, should actively put a needle in any baby's head, or attempt to suction out the brains of a child (both happen on a regular basis). If the baby happens to die while the mother is saved, it is sad. However, it is not murder. It is only murder if the human child is actively assaulted.
Next, I will dispute the idea that a potentially-handicapped person will be born into a life of pain, suffering, humiliation, or some combination of the three. My dispute is simple-who the heck are you to decide which innocent creation of God's lives or dies? Stephen Hawking is known as the smartest man in the world, yet he is wheelchair-bound and talks with the assistance of a machine. Furthermore, even a one percent chance that a person may overcome a handicap is better than the zero percent abortion offers.
If a child is too expensive for a mother to raise, she has two options: work her butt off for that child, or give it up for adoption. It takes a relatively short time span to go through the adoption process, and many times the biological mother can choose the adopting family and even name the child. Often, the mother can keep in contact with her child. I do have to wonder, however, why the mother was having sex if she knew she could not raise the child in her present monetary state. It screams "irresponsible" to me.
This brings me to my next point-the "oops I did it again" idea. This is a sarcastic version of a person deciding to have sex, then saying to herself, "dang, I did not expect to get pregnant." Well, honey, you should have thought of that earlier, before getting knocked up. This is the worst of the arguments so far, since this kind of thinking breeds societal apathy and irresponsibility.
Finally, we come to the argument of rape. Simply put, studies have shown that women who carry the child to term are both mentally and physically healthier than those who abort it. Studies have shown that women who have abortions have a 200 percent greater chance of suicide or depression, as well as greater odds of breast cancer and the possibility of becoming completely sterile. Then we have a situation like Drew Bledsoe's, who was accused of rape in 1999. The woman eventually admitted she had lied; however, what if before that she had aborted her child on the basis of rape? Should she be charged with murder for lying? Allowing rape abortions creates this potential abuse. Even in Roe vs. Wade, "Jane Roe" was never raped as she claimed. Instead, she and the father of her child had simply ended their relationship. Now, Roe speaks out against abortion, even asking the Supreme Court to overturn its decision. Thus, even the precedent-setting trial to legalize abortion nationwide was a fallacy.
I will leave you with one last question. A teenage girl is pregnant. She's not married. Her fiance is not the father of the baby, and he's very upset. Would you consider recommending abortion? If so, you have just killed Jesus Christ.