Abortion

Question posed by Mr. Dyck:The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?

Answer: The question isn't what about the women, the question is what is the unborn? Sure, if you admit that the unborn are not human, then yes, forcing a women to take the baby to term would be a violation of their rights. However, when you throw out the humanity of the unborn, you must also throw out the scientific law of biogenesis, which states that things procreate after their own kind, causing a fetus to be just as human as a two year old. So then, you find yourself at an impass, on the one hand you don't want to admit that a fetus is human, but on the other there is scientific fact that it would have to be. Oh, by the way, there are only four differences between a newborn and a fetus. Those differences are size, level of development, environment, and dependency. Let's analyze these differences. If size is makes someone more human, then Shaq is more human than Hilary Clinton and therefore has the right to kill her. The simple fact that Shaq is taller than Hilary Clinton has no bearing on Hilary's humanity. Now then, what of level of development? If this were true then a seventh grader is more human than a two year old and should have every right to kill the younger child because they are more developed. Again, not a valid argument, because any seventh grader that kills a two year old is tried and convicted of either murder of man slaughter. Environment has no bearing either. If you are on an airplane do you cease being you? Of course not. Leaving dependency. If dependent people aren't human than we should kill all people dependent on insulin, oxygen, ect. My brother happens to be a type 1 diabetic, which means he needs insulin to survive. Does that make him less human than me? Certainly not. So, in truth, there really are no substantial arguments for a fetus as not a human being. So, returning to the asked question, making abortion legal is not adding a right to women. It's taking the right of an innocent, undefended child. If the government were to make abortion illegal once again, it wouldn't be taking away a woman's right, but protecting that of the child. That doesn't mean that the next step is for the government to force women to undergo contraception and sterilization. That would be a violation of rights and therefore unconstitutional. The question at hand is not if women have the right to have an abortion, it's what about the child? What about the human being killed? What is the unborn? The law of biogenesis would say that the unborn are human, and the four main differences between an unborn fetus and a newborn baby are trivial. Abortion is not a right that women have. It's murder.