Abortion - Pro-Life Why Abortions

Abortion - Pro-Life Why Abortions Should be Illegal Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, (1973), which made abortion legal in the United States, the issue has been at the center of heated public debate. More than thirty years later, the controversy about abortion is still a hot topic. In this essay, I shall argue why abortion should be made illegal by refuting some of the pro-abortionist arguments and outline the current legal status of the controversial 'partial-birth abortion' issue.

It is often argued by supporters of abortion that when an unwanted pregnancy is aborted, the fetus is just a blob of tissue which cannot be considered a living being. Science tells us a different story. The baby has a beating heart, tiny little fingers and toes by just 18 days after fertilization. Most abortions are performed after nine weeks of pregnancy. By that time the baby is a distinct and unique human being who has a right to life just as any other living person.

Another oft-repeated pro-abortion argument is that a woman has a right of control over her own body and, therefore, should have the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. This line of argument further suggests that making abortion illegal would be a violation of a fundamental right and a "freedom of choice." The answer to this argument is that one has the right of control over but only until such a right does not interfere with another's right.

By terminating a pregnancy, a woman is ending the life of another human being which is the same as killing one's own child. Surely, no one should have such "freedom of choice." It has also been observed that most women who opt for abortion do not have accurate information about fetal development and about practical alternatives to abortion. It is believed that if women have such information available most of them would choose not to have an abortion.

The third pro-abortion argument is that the births of "unwanted" babies would only increase poverty and misery in the world and add to the social problems. Such an argument is akin to arguing that all poor children and people are better off dead because if they are 'allowed' to live, they would only add to the poverty in the world. The stance is, of course, preposterous. The solution to lessening poverty of course lies in providing more resources for development rather than encouraging abortion.

Similarly, some people justify the abortion of babies with disabilities on compassionate grounds. This reasoning is an extension of the now thoroughly discredited pseudo-science of eugenics that promoted the weeding out of the mentally retarded and feeble-minded populations. There is no 'compassion' involved in the killing of the most vulnerable sections of our population and the unborn child is quite obviously the most vulnerable. In fact, it is one of the cruelest acts imaginable.

It is also misleading to suggest that such unborn babies with disabilities are 'unwanted.' The readiness of families to adopt such disabled children disproves the contention. The most controversial legal issue facing the U.S. courts and the administration is the issue of 'partial birth abortion.' The procedure in which a baby's brain is 'literally sucked out' has been performed thousands of times in the country since abortion was legalized. The U.S. Congress passed the "partial-Birth ban Acts" in 1996 and 1997.