Abortion

I will respond to the claim that "The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?"

Unfortunately, neither of these ideas would work 100 percent. Forcing a woman to use contraception or making abortion illegal, would result in less abortions, but both are hard to mandate. Women would “forget” or “not want to use protection” and some would engage in back alley abortions, which could result in the death of the mother as well. So I think what we need is a better way to educate all women of reproductive age as to the real consequences of getting pregnant.

This assertion says that by getting rid of abortion, you take away the rights of that individual. While people are granted civil rights, it doesn't give the woman the right to control another’s life. Many may claim that the fetus is not human, therefore you can't say that you are killing a living human. Really? How is a fetus not human? The Law of Biogenesis says that living things produce after their own kind. A human is not going to produce a dog, or a cat. A human, therefore will produce a human. You can't say that it is your own right to control the fate of an innocent child. We have laws in our society today that make it illegal for one to murder another. What's the difference with this debate than the topic of murder? Both are taking the life of someone. You can't say that the fetus is not human. Back to my evidence on top of the Law of Biogenesis which adds to my argument that the unborn are no less human than we are. For instance, there is an acronym that is often used that proves that there is no difference whatsoever. It is called SLED. The "S" stands for "size." We must point out that larger people are no more human than smaller people. Secondly, "L" stands for "Level of Development." I think that everyone would agree that a toddler is no less human than a teenager. Sure, the knowledge that the teenager has is far greater than that of a toddler, but that doesn't make a teenager more human than a toddler. Next, there is "E", which stands for "Environment." As Scott Klusendorf puts it "A newborn in an incubator is not less human than a child outside the womb." Finally to finish our acronym, we have "D" which stands for "Degree of Dependency." Again, Klusendorf points out that "People on insulin are less viable but no less human."

Before engaging in sex, there are many ways in which one is able to prevent oneself from becoming pregnant. One must realize that ideas have consequences. Just because the parent made a mistake, doesn't make it okay for them to take the life of an innocent child. It's not like there isn’t an alternative to abortion. The child could be put up for adoption as there are many married couples that cannot conceive and would love to have a baby. There are also ways that one can prevent from becoming pregnant. In America we honor the rights of each individual equally. Now that we have proved that a fetus is human, that fetus has the exact same rights as its mother. The mother has no right, whatsoever to take the life of another living being.

Therefore, in the assertion that I am responding to, there is absolutely no supportive evidence that would give the mother a right to end the life of her child. A woman has many other options to choose from when it comes to preventing pregnancy. I want to end by saying: You think that killing is wrong, yet you want to support killing an innocent human being. How is this justifiable? It simply is not.