The Abortionist Murdering Babies, Continued

Some good comments came back from this topic, so I am addressing them in another post. Here is some exerpts:

Now, suppose the sperm fertilizes the egg. It still takes three weeks before the brain, heart, and spinal cord of the embryo develops (The details of fetal development can be found at http://health.allrefer.com/health/fetal-development-info.html) During the first three weeks, would terminating the pregnancy be an act of killing or a termination of the process that starts life (similar to the example I expressed in the previous paragraph)? After all, we’re still at the very beginning stages of development, so early in the development process that even the embryo’s vital organs have not formed. Would it be unreasonable to allow these three weeks as a grace period to allow for an abortion for those who do not wish to be parents?

No. Life has started for a separate human being with completely different genetic material at the joining of the two haploids to form a zygote single cell, it is a scientific fact. No debate here. There are thousands of species of bacteria and archaea that live their entire lives living as one cell, but do we not consider them “living” too? They are very small and we can not see them, are they considered to be less “living” than a human? Now I am not advocating for bacteria living rights or anything, but this clarifies the point of what is considered to be living.

The human fetus starts as a single living cell. Is 1 cell less “alive” than 50 cells? Or are 100 cells less alive than 100,000 cells? The fact is a human body is just a big conglomeration of many differentiated living cells working together. The point being is that many pro-abortionist say that life has not began at this early of development, but I assure you, it has, from the moment the two parent cells joined. Look it up in any Biology book. Killing the “cells” that make up a fetus, no matter how few, is still killing.

You could argue that life has begun in the first three weeks, so yes, you may say that it is killing, and that would be a valid idea. However, others may have the view that life begins after the formation of the major organs, and I think this is also a valid idea.

No. Life has began at the formation of the zygote. This is non-debatable. It is a scientific fact, it isn’t just an “idea”.

Your last point addresses that that zygote’s DNA is separate than that of the mother’s…therefore, it is not part of the mother’s “body”. This is one way of looking at the argument, but there is another way you could look at it.

During the period of time that the fetus is in the womb, the mother’s body is the “carrier” of the fetus. The mother is essentially the fetus’ “world”. As the owner of the world, for that period of time, the mother is like a “god”. What she puts in her body affects the fetus. If she does drugs during pregnancy, this will have a negative effect on the fetus. If she eats healthy and keeps stress at the minimum, this will have a direct positive effect on the fetus. Therefore, even if the DNA is not the same, it still does not take away from the fact that the mother “owns” the fetus’ “world”, and therefore, should be able to make decisions as to what she wants in the “world”. That is, unless we adopt laws that prevent the mother from making these decisions.

Firstly, the mother is not like a “God”, she is like a mother. And the mother does not “own” the fetus’ “world”, the fetus resides in this world our Creator has given her, she just so happens to be in another human during the time. And secondly, the mother can decide what to do with her own body (cells that have HER DNA, that’s the biological definition of a human), however the fetus is a separate conglomeration of cells with her own DNA that just so happen to be in the mother’s body.

If the mother decides to do drugs (makes her happy) and sacrifice the life of the fetus inside of it, she knows very well that her actions will potentially murder the child. If a murderer decides he wants to go on a shooting rampage (makes him happy), he knows very well that his actions can potentially murder people. Does the happiness of the murderer(s) trump the life of other humans?

The Declaration of Independence states that humans “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, and it is well understood that Americans have these rights as long as they are not infringing upon the same rights of others. The mother’s drinking problem does make her “happy”, but this right infringes upon the right to life of the baby.

I leave you with the following question for my last point: Is abortion something the government should control?

Well since abortion is the murdering of a baby, we can equate abortion to murder. So lets ask the question, “Is murder something the government should control?”