On Abortion

Ah. The topic that pits freedom against ethics. To say the least, this is a subject of much controversy and for the most part there is no middle ground. However in true Wahbastic fashion I shall strip the emotions that have defined this debate for so long and attempt to convince you that it is wrong in principle.

While I am not a person to criticize freedom of self destruction, I subscribe to the fact that an abortion is legally considered the killing of a human. I know, controversial, but here me out here.

The law has almost always considered fetuses to be alive. This can easily be shown in the Scott Peterson case. While this case doesn't have anything to do with abortion, the case shows that the law acknowledges the life of a fetus. Peterson killed his wife who was 8 months pregnant. If the law considered the fetus not to be alive, then Peterson would have been charged with one count of homicide, no problem. However, the court went a step further and added a second count of homicide for the unborn child. This shows beyond any doubt that fetuses are alive, and as such have a right to life, liberty and property. Mind you homicide is defined as the killing of a human being. There is no ownership of an unborn fetus. It is not private property. It is legally a human life. Remember that.

Some will say " Abortions in the third trimester are restricted by Roe v. Wade." It is true that third trimester abortions are technically restricted to cases where the life and well being of the woman are at stake under Roe v. Wade. However, these restrictions are essentially canceled in the case of Doe v. Bolton. In this case, the court stated that abortions are legal in the third trimester as long as the "physical, emotional, psychological, (and) familial." are at stake.  In other words, as long as the woman can show the doctor that her emotional well-being will be put at stake by the addition of a dependent (duh!) then she has the right to an abortion.

Do you see the dichotomy? While the law is not willing to abridge a woman's right to have an abortion, it
acknowledges the life of the fetus. In other words abortion is homicide. There is absolutely no way to dispute that. However even homicide can sometimes be justified, so let's explore this option for a moment.

The justification that some people have for the legalization of abortion is that if the fetus was not aborted, it would be mistreated, and would more likely than not become a criminal. This does seem to be a sound logical argument that may or may not be disputed by statistics, however the principle behind this argument is flawed. If ending a life can be used in order to protect society, then we open a door that frankly should be under lock and key. With parental consent (in the form of a will) should we kill orphans as they are likely to cause societal grief? How about single parents who were abandoned by a spouse, should they be allowed to end the life of a child since they are likely to become criminals? African American children are statistically more likely yo become criminals, should we kill them? We as a society do not dispute that those actions would be monstrous and yet we are willing to justify abortion on the grounds of societal welfare.

I am not suggesting that tomorrow we wake up and declare abortions to be illegal throughout the land. What I am suggesting we do is leave the decision to the states. Roe v. Wade should be overturned and states should be able to outlaw it by popular vote. I am simply not convinced that an abortion should be protected by the 4th amendment which protects private property. If you can kill a fetus, then it is not private property.

Abortion is killing. No ifs, ands or buts about it. If anyone wants to give a justification for it I would be more than happy to discuss that.

Sound off below.

Coming up next: Soccer is more than just a game