The Legalization Of Abortion

Many Supreme Court rulings have been pivotal throughout the history of the judicial system of the United States of America. One of the most famous and controversial cases in U.S. history, Roe v. Wade, legalized the act of a woman aborting her unborn child. Since its legalization in 1973, abortion has been a very passionate topic amongst its opposers with protests annually, numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Abortion is a major issue in terms of ethics and human values. A living being has intrinsic moral value and rights regardless of location or stage in development. Abortion promotes a culture in which human life is disposable. The question that should then be asked is: On what moral grounds does the mother alone decide a fetus’s worth?

A human fetus has infinite potential, an absolute right to live (as all human beings should), therefore killing it would not only be murder, but should also be illegal. Abortion is not a matter of choice, it’s a matter of life and how we value it. Having the freedom to choose whether or not an unborn person is to be killed is not a right which can be justified morally or legally. No person should have the right to destroy the life of another person. Since abortion is the intentional killing of another human individual before their birth, it should not be permitted under any circumstances.
The debate on abortion, while seemingly complicated and overwhelming, can be easily broken down into simple parts that can then be evaluated through simple reasoning.

The first, and very common pro-choice argument that can easily be defeated is in regards to the humanity and personhood of a fetus. Those who support the legalization of abortion often argue that a fetus is not a human or that they lack personhood: the state or fact of being an individual or having human characteristics and feelings (Personhood). The humanity of a fetus is unmistakably present. At the moment of conception the unborn child is unique from its mother and father and possesses all necessary instructions for development. This uniqueness from the mother includes not only DNA, but in some cases even blood type, hair color, and eye color. All development onwards is simply replication of what already exists. The fetus is a homo sapien and, while attached to the mother, is a unique individual. People ask pregnant women, “How’s the baby?” not, “How’s your body?” A fetus is just a human being that has not been born yet; nothing more, nothing

less.
The second argument is that a fetus lacks ‘personhood’ and therefore it is acceptable to treat them differently.

The logical fallacy in this argument is that the attributes that some would propose prevent a fetus from being a person would also apply to certain people who have already been born. Unborn persons are dependent on their mothers for survival just as newborn babies and young children are, and indeed, as many elderly and ill persons are. Being dependent does not invalidate personhood. Another defense would be that fetuses are incapable of rational thought or self awareness therefore they are not a person. Using this rationale, coma patients and individuals with certain mental disabilities would not be considered a person. There are obvious faults to all of these arguments. Pro-choice advocates apply different standards to unborn babies than to infants in an attempt to push their

agenda.
Now that we have established that it is apparent that fetuses are not only human beings, but also possess personhood the next logical argument would be in special cases of rape and incest (which pertain to less than 1% of all abortions). Abortion cannot be justified in these situations since it is unethical to kill another innocent human being. A fetus is innocent in that it has not committed any crimes or wrongdoings, and is a human being on a genetic and functional level. A woman who has been raped will not be 'unraped' after an abortion. Abortion will not take away the incestuous violation of a young girl. In fact, in the case of incest, abortion helps protect the abuser by helping to hide his crime. Secondly, when rapists are jailed, we do not also jail their children. Killing a child who is a product of rape or incest punishes the child. It does not punish the rapist or abuser. No civilized society punishes a child with death because of the sins of their parents. It is understandable that a woman who is pregnant due to rape or incest may not want the child. However, killing the child puts the woman in the position of responding to violence with another act of violence. There are thousands of couples eager to adopt babies. A child that is a burden to a mother could be a gift to another. This allows the woman to not be forever reminded of her violation without having to live with the physical and psychological consequences of abortion.
The easiest way to harm or convince others of harming another human being is first by dehumanizing the individual. It is obvious that today’s society has been successful in dehumanizing an unborn child. If every mother were able to see a future glimpse of their unborn baby at the age of three, ten, or even eighteen then the bigger picture of their actions would be much clearer: They are killing a human being that, if given the chance to live, may be someone’s best friend one day or someone’s partner for life. Once conception has occurred the person has then been permanently brought into this world and should not have to fear that its source of life should be the one to end it.