Abortion is oppression. Here’s proof…

The Left likes to claim abortion is about choice. Ironically, it’s just the opposite.

First, a note: this is not the usual anti-abortion message. This isn’t emotional loaded rhetoric and it certainly is not right wing propaganda. What it is is a logical dissection of the assumptions and assertions made by pro-abortionists in what may be unique, innovative or at the very least lesser explored approaches. The intent of this is not to contend with zealots, nor change the hardened heart. Rather, the intent is to give food for thought to the open-minded plus logical affirmation to the rightly resolved pro-lifer. No doubt there will be minor points to contend with, but the core points will be difficult if not impossible to dispute without torturing reason, responding emotionally, name-calling, retreating to alternate points, or rejecting reality outright. Of course, given this in an article about abortion, I fully expect about 12 people to read it and not a single one to engage, but it will be here as a reference and voice of reason regardless.

Abortion is oppression. That is a fact. It is not an unsupported assertion to provoke the Left, it is fact, every bit as legitimate as the sun rising and gravity, and here’s why.

First, unborn children are human beings from the moment of conception. This isn’t because God says so, a preacher says so, or even because a government leader says so; it’s because science says so.

ARE YOU A HUMAN BEING? PROVE IT.

If you had to prove your identity as a human being beyond a reasonable doubt, how would you do it? It’s a simple question. It also actually has a simple answer.

So how would you do it? Fingerprints might work. But what if you didn’t have fingers? Ok, how about a scan of your retina? Same problem if you don’t have eyes. What if a person had nothing more than a faceless head and torso? Grotesque sounding, sure, but such things happen. What then? What is the only scientifically sound and legally recognized means of virtually indisputable individual identification? It’s something we all have, and every one of us has a different one: DNA.

The philosopher Descartes deduced the infamous metaphysical conclusion, “I think therefore I am.” In modern times however, it’s more accurately stated “I have DNA therefore I am.” DNA makes us who we are. Not our age, not or height, not our knowledge, race, status, or anything else we know of currently. It all comes down to our DNA. You are because you have DNA. And guess when that DNA is created? At birth? Nope, sooner. Third trimester? Nope, sooner. Second trimester? Sooner. First? Close. It happens at the moment a zygote, or fertilized egg, is created. In other words, it happens at conception.

That’s right, the very instant a man’s sperm cell penetrates the outer membrane of the woman’s ovum an entirely new individual human blueprint is created — separate and distinct from both biological parental contributors. (go ahead, look it up!) Individual DNA is there from the very outset of development. Sure, there is no heartbeat yet, no eyes, no mouth, no voting card, no twitter feed, no means of expressing desire, intent, moral outrage or any other form of communication we can currently detect, but the essence of what it is to be a human is there in full, right from the beginning.

And incidentally, this DNA is shared with no other living creature on earth. Human DNA is just that: human. Two humans have never a single time produced any DNA other than human DNA. And guess what human DNA has always produced? You got it, humans. Without exception. Just as gravity always attracts, the earth turns and the earth’s climate changes, humans reproducing always produce human DNA. And yet pro-abortionists will argue that an embryo is merely a “potential human” and that despite a flawless scientific record of humans emerging from human DNA, they insist there is no way to be certain it will work “this time”, and thus abortion is a mere discarding of extra tissue; in spite of the fact that the tissue contains separate DNA from that of the body it is growing in. Abortionists literally argue that at any point a human mother might just give birth to a dolphin, a raccoon, or a condor (ironically, any one of which would be vigorously protected by law from any intent to abort), a claim so cosmically imbecilic it bears no need for rebuttal but for the sake of making the factual case…

Let’s test the logic outside the womb. Can you prove to me or anyone else that you will in fact continue living in ten minutes? Can you prove that? Really prove it, like court of law prove it? If not, and unless you have some Minority Report level technology you’re hiding from the rest of us you won’t, shouldn’t I be able to push you in front of a speeding bus and claim the “potential human” defense path to freedom? Sure, you might have thought you’d live that long, and every ten minutes before you did so, but what proof do you have that you had a future this time?

It sounds imbecilic, doesn’t it? That’s because it is.

So if DNA defines a human, and developing zygotes, embryos and fetuses all have their very own, what possible reason would we have to suggest that in spite of this hard and fast scientific fact, that a developing baby is anything less than an individual human being with rights and claim to protection under the law?

Legally (and philosophically for that matter) humanity has nothing to do with maturation, size or age. A forty year-old man is considerably more developed than a two year-old boy, but does that make the boy not a human? Of course not. The boy is merely at a different stage of development, but that in no way disqualifies him from protection from murder or oppression. Age may influence certain privileges like driving a car or drinking alcohol, but one’s life is not a privilege, it is a right possessed by all humans.

Even the worst of our kind, the murderers and rapists, enjoy great protection from execution. For the state to end the life of a convicted killer, it must go through an exhaustive, expensive and pain-staking course of motions, actions, and approvals to do so. It often takes years and even decades. And that is to kill someone convicted of brutally and intentionally killing someone else. So why, legally speaking would our unborn children not be given any protection under the law?

BABIES WOULD DIE WITHOUT THEIR MOTHER’S BODY, SO THEY DON’T COUNT, RIGHT?

How about, suggesting the baby can’t live without the mother and therefore isn’t worthy of protection? It’s simply a parasite, right? That’s the argument the pro-abortionists will make. So let’s test that claim.

It’s true that up to a certain critical time, without the mother’s body developing fetuses would perish. But does that mean a developing human is fair game legally? This begs another question. If a baby is born and left to its own devices, can it survive? Of course not. Even the fabled wild children raised by animals only survived with the help of another, and yet to abandon a baby to die of neglect is murder. Why? Because that baby has rights to life, and the law considers the mother to be the one responsible to provide that unless she legally surrenders that right to another. So if needing life-giving aid isn’t a disqualification for babies outside the womb, why would it be any different for those in the womb? Only because pro-abortionists insist so. Clearly the precedent when properly applied obliterates this claim.

BABIES DON’T EVEN HAVE A HEARTBEAT FOR THE FIRST FEW WEEKS OF THEIR LIFE, SO WHY SHOULD THEY GET PROTECTION FOR LIFE?

Seems like a challenge without an answer doesn’t it? Fortunately for babies, there is a simple one, yet again. All it takes it to look past the desperate rhetoric and examine the logic, or better yet, the law.

If a person no longer has a heartbeat, what do we consider them, in spite of their individual DNA? Dead, of course. So once a person is dead, do they no longer enjoy protection under the law? No. Even dead people have rights.

Without a stitch of life in you, you still possess unbreakable and unquestionable rights. For example, your wishes communicated in a will are held sound and sacred by law, even after your heart stopped beating days, weeks, even years before. After you die you are still legally protected from rape. Even as a dead person it is illegal to steal your intellectual ideas and possessions. So a heartbeat can’t possibly be a legal requirement for establishing claim on constitutional rights, so why would it be any different for a developing human?

WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO CHOOSE? DOESN’T THAT TRUMP THE BABY’S RIGHTS? WHAT ABOUT WOMEN’S HEALTH?

Women’s Health is a third rail level political topic and so the pro-abortionists deftly use it as a clever distraction. As if pregnancy is a condition women catch like a cold. It’s as if none of us ever got the birds-and-the-bees talk. Surely we all clearly understand the steps necessary to become pregnant. Surely we understand this is not some condition unwittingly inherited by women by pure accident (yes, rape is an exception to this – and is a different topic altogether.) We all know that you don’t simply come down with a “bad case of the preggers”. Except for the horror of rape, pregnancy starts by choosing to engage in either sexual intercourse or a related medical procedure. It starts with a choice. This is the very heart of the issue. Not whether there is choice, but when there is choice.

Of course this is nothing new, but is still relevant to the proper logic regarding abortion. What isn’t so readily understood however is how serious this point is. If a woman’s health is impacted by that woman’s choice, then the matter changes dramatically. So dramatically, in fact, that pro-abortionists fight as viciously about this point as any other. This is ground zero in their battle for license, and they are well aware that it’s very thin ice upon which they tread.

If a woman makes a choice to have unprotected sex, or even sex under what she believes is safe, she has still willingly taken what virtually every adult knows is a potentially life-changing and potentially life-creating act. Willful involvement in an act with known consequences precludes and eliminates any claim of victimhood. Gone is the sympathy. Gone is the special status. Gone is the powerful rhetoric.

If a woman chooses to take cocaine, does the drug war become a woman’s health issue? If a woman steps out into oncoming traffic, does pedestrian safety become a woman’s health issue? If a woman eats rotten seafood, does pharmaceutical regulation become a woman’s health issue? All involve an adverse consequence regarding her body. All create an uncomfortable situation for the woman. All impact her choices later. So do they then become sacred cows legally and politically? Of course not, because no one would accept the argument. So why then do we accept the same exact argument when it comes to abortion? Really. Think about that.

OK, MORE SPECIFICALLY, WHAT OF THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER?

Pro-abortionists claim that a woman should be able to kill her developing baby in deference to her own health. It’s not often a claim extended on legal grounds so much as emotional grounds. “How dare you men tell us women what to do with our bodies?” they scream. But is the question valid? Again, let’s test it.

If the developing baby is an individual human, which DNA readily establishes, than aborting the child to protect one’s own health falls under the self-defense provisions of the law.

In cases of self0defense, the parameters for use of deadly force are quite narrow and precise. (We do this so our streets don’t become the killing fields – generally speaking, humans don’t like to be killed – the irony here is massive.) As an example, is a gun owner allowed to simply kill out of convenience? Can one simply choose to bludgeon their neighbor to death to protect them from potential poverty? Can you mercifully decapitate someone on the street for fear they might someday lead an uncomfortable or challenging life? Of course not. And yet these are the excuses given for doing it, not to everyday people, but the most helpless and defenseless of our kind: unborn children.

In matters of self defense it is clearly stated that you are allowed to take another’s life if your life is in imminent and immediate danger. In other words, if someone is going to take your life right now, you can take theirs first in defense of your own. If however, you know someone is coming to kill you in a few minutes, no matter how certain you are, you do not have the legal authority to kill them preemptively. To be consistent with such common sense statutes, the one and only time a mother should be legally permitted to end her growing, unborn child’s life is when that pregnancy is literally and immediately killing her. Beyond that, “defensive” claims to abortion fail the self-defense test and should therefore fail any claim for legality. Abortion is not a matter of emotion, it is a legal matter and therefore legal precedent and consistent should prevail.

But then some pregnancies cause extreme health conditions, even nearing on death or at the very least severe inconvenience or discomfort. What then? In these cases shouldn’t an abortion be permitted? Let’s test it again. In a similar situation, for cancer patients, many doctors prescribe chemotherapy. Like some adverse pregnancies, chemo can threaten a patient’s life. It most certainly creates exceptional inconvenience and discomfort. Shouldn’t then cancer patients be permitted to murder their oncologists? Even the most hardened pro-abortionist would roll her eyes at such preposterous postulating, because it is indeed preposterous. And yet it is only as preposterous as the reasoning that anything less than the legal standard for self-defense is cause for taking the life of another human, even if that human is within another human.

We look back at the times of slavery in America with horror and dismay over the widespread mistreatment of blacks due to the general acceptance that they were somehow biologically lesser than whites. (This of course is but one of many historical instances of the dominant race dehumanizing a lesser race to justify otherwise immoral or unethical treatment of them) We scoff in disbelief that they would be so daft as to fall for what now seems such a blatantly erroneous rhetorical position, and yet here we are as a country allowing a portion of our population to bend our minds back into that logical pretzel.

Slavery was oppression. We all know it and we all acknowledge it.
Abortion is also oppression. We all know it, only some of us choose to ignore it.

The Left was against abolition of slavery. They are now against the protection of the unborn. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now. It’s time we stepped into an enlightened future, shed the shackles of furthered oppression, and protect those who can’t protect themselves.

About

I have opinions. Most of them are right.

}