Pro-life arguments are now based on scientific evidence and the pro-choice arguments are not. So the real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life?

Everyone argues: But it is the mother's CHOICE. Let's talk about what that "choice" really is....

Webster's Dictionary definition of abortion:
"the termination of a pregnancy resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus."

Let's break it down to understand what it all really means...

definition of Termination: to bring to an end to, to stop or to limit something from happening; to end or limit existence.

definition of Pregnancy: containing a developing embryo, fetus or unborn offspring within the body

definition of Death: the end of life, the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism; extinction, destruction, life coming to an end

definition of Embryo: the early stages of human development within the womb up to the end of the second month

definition of Fetus: unborn young; a human infant from the eighth week of development to birth; from the latin meaning young one

So as you can clearly see by definition, abortion is the intentional destruction, distinguishing or death of a human life. We will fight for the sanctity of life for human lives outside the womb but even though science proves that life begins at conception we still
have so many that fight for the right of women to kill the very weakest of our human species, the very life inside them, our unborn babies. They speak as though a woman's right to choose is respectful, harmless and empowering. What is respectful about killing a defenseless human life who did nothing to provoke such an execution? What is harmless about ending a life and in some cases even hurting the mother? And what is empowering about an undeniably stronger person intentionally killing the weakest and most defenseless of our human kind? That is what we would otherwise call an unfair fight. What gives the mother more power and rights over her child's right to live? The right to life should override any other rights because without life, no other rights would matter or exist. So regardless of whether or not the mother doesn't want the child or can't afford the child or whatever the excuses may be those rights which have become severely selfish should never supersede the right of the child to have life. To have a fair chance at life.

I hear so much from society about what is "fair" or what we "deserve"...what is truly fair about abortion? Does any child deserve to die to an abortionists knife? People preach about equal rights and that God created all men when did we take such a hypocritical stand when it comes to abortion? Shouldn't those unborn children have just as much a right to live as we do?! We have grown to be so much of a selfish society and have an "every man for himself" attitude that we have made such an undeniably selfish act seem acceptable. I am standing out today to say this is wrong. No one should die simply because someone else wills it so. How arrogant of us to think that we can decide who should live or die.

Did you know that if someone kills a pregnant woman and in turn the baby dies it is considered a double homicide? The Unborn Victims of Violence Act protects "the child in utero" and actually defines the unborn as a member of the human species therefor protecting it by law against a violent act resulting in death. Of course this law does not apply to deaths resulting from abortion....but why? Isn't it the same concept? A death of a baby still occurs in the case of abortion and yet the child is not protected by law and there is no accountability for this type of murder. There is a sense of double standards here. We can't say we are going to protect human lives in some cases and then not do so in others. It doesn't uphold a respect for life. And without a global respect for life how do we expect disrespect for life not to occur? (ie: rape, molestation, murder, etc.)

Something to seriously consider......

0 Responses
Related Posts with Thumbnails