Against Legalization of Abortion

¶ … Against Abortion

In the past few decades an argument has raged across America over the issue of abortion. My personal opinion on this subject is that abortion should not be legal. I believe that because an embryo, and later a fetus, is a human life form that is separate and distinct from its parents, and has the potential to become something great, that people should follow the "Golden Rule" and treat others, including embryos, only as they would like to be treated; and this would mean not ending their life. Therefore, in the debate over abortion, I am on the "Pro-Life" side.

While many abortion proponents concentrate their arguments on the mother and her rights, they often forget that there is another person involved, and it is a distinct and individual life form. Most embryology texts indicate that the life of a human being "begins with complete fertilization, which yields a genetically and functionally distinct organism, possessing the resources and active disposition for internally directed development toward human maturity." (Lee and George, 2005, p.14) Therefore, a human embryo is a distinct life form which is deserving of individual respect and human rights because from the point of fertilization it is distinct and unlike any cell of either parent. Secondly, the embryo contains the genetic makeup which classifies it as distinctly "human," and finally, "the embryo, from conception onward, is a complete or whole organism…." (Lee and George, 2005, p. 14) These three points help to reinforce the idea that although the fetus may be immature, and dependent upon the mother, it is still an independent and distinct human life form which given the opportunity, will develop into a fully grown and mature human being.

Part of this argument entails the opportunity for the embryo to develop and grow, and this takes time. Therefore, one particularly interesting and very effective argument against abortions lies in the logic that just because something does not seem to have value at the moment, in the future that thing may indeed come to possess great value. What if Leonardo Da Vinci had destroyed the Mona Lisa before he had completed it? The world would have been deprived of a great masterpiece and Western art may have developed differently. Thus, just because something may not seem to have value, no one can tell what the future may bring and what will have value or not. Likewise, abortion deprives the world of the future potential and value of each and every child destroyed. "The fetus is like a work of art. To destroy a fetus which would have a future of value" is to deny the world of the benefits of that value. (Savulescu, 2002) Not to mention the individual life that would have been created without an abortion. Who has the right to deny another person the enjoyment of a future life? Abortion not only effects the present but can have profound effects on the future as well.

Finally, besides the scientific evidence supporting that human life begins at conception, and that human life has an almost limitless potential for future value, there is always the "Golden Rule" which dominates Western ethics. The "Golden Rule" states that a person should to onto others only that which they would have done to them. In the case of abortion, each person must consider the "Golden Rule" and apply it to themselves. They must ask themselves if they would be alright if their own mother had made the decision to abort them. "If you kill the unborn, and yet don't consent to the idea of your mother having done the same thing to you in the same situation, then you violate the golden rule and are inconsistent." (Gensler, 2011, p. 170) In the great debate that has raged in the United States over the issue of abortion, I would have to take my place on the "Pro-Life" side and proclaim my opposition to abortion.

Part Two: