Photo by American Life League, via Flickr

September 13, 2017 Johnny Derringer 3Comment

The first unalienable right is to life.

Just last week in an ironic twist of fate, Planned Parenthood sent out a fundraising email in which they made the case for the right to life. Responding to President Trump’s decision to end DACA, the nation’s number one abortion performer experienced an astounding lack of self-awareness as they advocate for what they have lobbied against since its inception. But sure, let’s take them at their word.

As we approach the 2017 “off-year” election season, America finds itself in a unique position. Some will vote on very important local elections and issues, while other voters will take the year off before America’s mid-term elections in 2018. As voters begin to judge candidates — either now or in the future — one critical issue that constitutes perception is a candidate’s stance on abortion. Now, as a result of the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, a single candidate at any level cannot overturn the legalization of abortion. It would take two-thirds of each House in Congress, or three-fourths of the states to reverse Roe v. Wade. That’s a tall order. Nevertheless, the Pro-Life movement is still a very important cause that is incredibly vibrant.

Ever since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 that legalized abortion, US Abortion Clock  estimates that over 60 million unborn babies have been murdered. These innocent lives had no say on whether they would have a chance at life. The Guttmacher Institute estimated that roughly 1.05 million babies in the U.S. were killed by abortion in 2012 alone. Meanwhile, around two million couples look to adopt each year, meaning there are more parents out there desperately desiring a child than babies aborted.  

On the first day a woman is pregnant, her child acquires 23 distinct chromosomes from the mother and father. This set of chromosomes will never be repeated, thus creating a new, unique, human being. On just the eighteenth day that the child has lived, a heart starts to beat. Life has undoubtedly begun.

“When a pregnant woman is killed, the murderer is charged with a double-homicide. Our legal system already recognizes a baby in the womb as a living human, so how does it legally allow the practice of abortion?”

The Pro-Abortion movement claims that since it is a woman’s body, it is therefore a woman’s choice if she wants to have an abortion. Proponents refuse to recognize that the baby is a separate human being from the mother. When a child kicks and moves around, these actions are not performed by the mom. Since a baby is indeed a separate living being than its mother, and the baby is unjustly killed, it should be considered murder just like if any other living human is unjustly killed. When a pregnant woman is killed, the murderer is charged with a double-homicide. Our legal system already recognizes a baby in the womb as a living human, so how does it legally allow the practice of abortion? Humans cannot do whatever they wish with his or her body if it involves physically injuring, or in this case murdering, another human being.

Proponents of abortion also claim that if you disagree with the legalization of abortion, then you are sexist and are just looking to suppress women from exercising their rights. What about the innocent life living in the woman and its right to life? Is its right to life not revoked when its chance at life is extinguished? And what about the fathers? Even if the father is married to the mother, he has no legal right to stop the mother from having an abortion. The man’s opinion is certainly squandered here, considering his own child can be killed without having any say in the matter.

Another issue that repeatedly comes up when discussing the idea of outlawing abortion is the unfortunate circumstances surrounding a woman who becomes pregnant due to rape. These are unmistakably horrific circumstances. Women being forced to have sex against their will is a terrible crime that is absolutely wrong and inexcusable. However, this argument is merely a distraction that supporters of abortion bring up to draw attention away from the typical practice.

The Guttmacher Institute reported that only 1% percent of all abortions take place because of rape or incest, which are both clearly against the law. There is certainly a different argument for these cases, but they are only a tiny fraction of all the abortions that occur. Another 6% of abortions occur because of health problems with the mother or the child. These cases are also very tragic and unfortunate, and in a lot of these instances the choice must be made whether to save the mother or the child. Even before Roe v. Wade was implemented, States that outlawed abortion permitted the practice to save the mother’s life. These examples do not account to anywhere near a majority,  and should not be the main focus of the discussion over abortion. The Pro-Life movement as a whole recognizes the severity of these instances and encourages careful discretion on the parts of all parties. The main issue this movement is fighting against is the 93% of abortions that are performed because the baby is “unwanted” or “inconvenient”.

Even though no action on abortion will be taken at the polls, the Pro-Life movement is still a formidable presence in American politics. History has shown that millions of lives are at risk if we stand idly by. As we exercise our right to vote, one of many rights we enjoy, the rights of those who have no voice remain ignored. As Martin Luther King Jr. once stated, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” If not us, who will step up to defend the rights of babies who have no voice? This is our task.

Follow this author Twitter: @jonnyboyyy22

The Cincinnati Republic is fighting to bring reason and logic back to the forefront of our politics. Join us! Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter.

  • TZ

    Hey Johnny Derringer abortion is not murder. Why are you trying to force your religion on the rest of us? Just because you believe in things you don’t understand doesn’t mean I have to as well. Also “Our legal system already recognizes a baby in the womb as a living human” is a lie. Entirely bullshit. And irrelevant. Cops kill living humans all the time. So does the military. So does the legal system.

    If you do not want an abortion, then don’t get one. It is none of your business what others do.

    • Taylor Chambers

      Thats the power of free speech right? The writer isn’t forcing you to agree with what he feels is right or his religious views, he’s simply practicing his right. I don’t think its okay to kill anyone whether you’re a part of the legal system or not. Having power in society doesn’t make it any worse than a regular citizen who is doing the same thing. A murderer is a murderer. Many books and websites show you the weekly progression of the baby’s development and very early on in the process they are rapidly forming into a living breathing human. I agree with the author that that is murder. I understand, since I am a woman, that we have a right to do what we want with our bodies, but is it fair to kill a human who doesn’t really have a say yet? Were given the power to make another human being, shouldn’t we be cherishing that?

      • TZ

        Except that it doesn’t matter what you or Johnny believe is murder. That is irrelevant. Murder is a legal construct that currently does not include abortion. When you call someone a murderer for a legal action you are implying that your personal religious views outweighs mine (and more importantly society’s). That is morally wrong, undemocratic and is used to dishonestly de-legitimatize the pro-choice viewpoint.

        For instance, our military kills many people that don’t have a say in it. So why is abortion different than bombing villages? Both are usually considered “legal” but morally wrong. Again if you believe that abortion is against your personal religion then fine, you are free to not have abortions. Just as the US is free to not bomb villages. That is freedom of choice. But when one argues that their personal religious views should be made law, by defining abortion as murder, they are telling me that their minority viewpoint should overrule the majority’s. I say that if you want that to happen then you need to amend the Constitution to restrict women’s right to privacy that is the principal underlying the right to a abortion.

        You say you were given “the power to make another human being”. By who? Some magical imaginary friend? Furthermore, why should that ability be cherished? How does it benefit society as a whole to bring unwanted children into the world? Why should an unborn child have rights? Try to make that argument without relying on personal religious belief. The Constitution certainly didn’t guarantee that all humans had equal rights until we modified it (see the whole slavery and voting thing).

        What the author is really advocating with his free speech, is that his personal religious beliefs should be made into law that all the rest of have to follow or risk incarceration. He makes no argument as to why at will abortion is wrong, except by his belief that it is (or should be) defined as murder because he believes fetuses (or fathers) have rights that should be recognized. That is fine to feel that way, but why should those rights exceed the mother’s? What is equal about that? That is a question that no one seems to be able to answer without invoking religious views.

        If you have to believe something is true because it can’t be proved, it probably ain’t.