Abortion is the new Slavery

I think Abortion is the new Slavery. By that I mean that abortion today is similar to what slavery was in the USA about 160 years ago: a moral evil that was permitted by law and accepted by much of the culture. Being legal didn't make it morally right. Those who properly perceived it as evil had to speak up and challenge the existing law and culture.

For a long time I wasn't sure where to stand on the issue. But then someone pointed out to me the one key question that it all hinges upon. Since then, the moral evil of abortion has been clear to me. My hope is that more and more of us will come to this understanding so we can do what those before us did with slavery: challenge and change our laws and culture to eliminate abortion.

The Key Question

The key question in the abortion debate is this: what is the unborn? It's not about choice, it's not about privacy, it's not about a woman's body, and it's not even about rape or incest, as we'll see later. If the unborn is just "tissue" rather than a separate, living, human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary (does a woman need to justify an appendectomy?). On the other hand, if the unborn is a separate, living, human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate.

So what is the unborn? (What does science tell us?)

Is it alive? Yes. The cells of an unborn child, from the moment of conception, grow and metabolize. By all the normal biological definitions of something being "alive", the unborn child fits the description.

Is it human? Yes. The DNA of an unborn child, from the moment of conception, is human DNA. Some might say "well, it doesn't look human". Actually the unborn, at any stage of its development, looks exactly like all humans do at that stage of development. It may not look like an adult human, but neither does a newborn, or a toddler, or a child, or an amputee. But they are all human, and if not killed, that same DNA will guide their development and form throughout their entire life: from an embryo to a newborn, to a toddler, to a child, to an adult, and to an elderly adult.

Is it a separate being than its mother? Yes. The DNA of an unborn child, from the moment of conception, is uniquely different from its mother's. Always. Period. And DNA is such a definitive way to determine one human being from another that we rely on it to solve crimes: if different DNA, then different persons. So why would we not apply this test to the unborn as well?
In addition to DNA differences, an unborn child may have a different blood type than its mother. (The same being does not have two blood types.) It may also have a different gender than its mother. Mother and unborn child are clearly different (separate) beings. Yes, one is temporarily living inside the other, but they are different human beings nonetheless.

So the unborn is: a separate, living, human being.

The Clear Moral Implications

Given this, the moral evil of abortion becomes clear. Just substitute a toddler for the unborn in any given scenario for abortion and you will see it. (Both the unborn and the toddler are living human beings, separate from, but dependent on, their mothers. They are simply at different levels of development.)

For example, if a young woman who is pregnant will be "unable to take care of a child", should abortion be legal? Well, what if a young woman is unable to take care of her toddler? Can we kill the toddler? No. Why? Because it is a human being and we can't just kill a human being just because its mother can't take care of it.

What about rape and incest? Well, what if a child from rape or incest is now a toddler? Can we kill the toddler? No. Why? Because it is a human being and we can't kill a human being just because it reminds its mother of a horrible experience, or was the result of a horribly immoral act. In fact, consider this: in the case of rape, we can't even legally kill the rapist until he's had the chance to a fair trial. Why should we be allowed to kill the unborn human being who is unable to plead its case when we can't even kill the rapist until he's plead his case?

As you may now begin to see, other arguments for abortion such as "choice" or "privacy" fail this test as well. Should a woman have the right to "choose" whether or not to kill her toddler? Clearly not. How about this: Should a woman be allowed to make a "private decision" between her and her doctor to kill her toddler? Again, clearly this is morally unacceptable.
The moral implications are clear: because the unborn is a separate, living, human being, no justification for abortion is adequate.

Not a Preference

Let's get back to the slavery comparison. Have you ever seen the bumper sticker that says this?

"Don't like abortion? Don't have one."

If abortion were like ice cream, a personal preference rather than a moral evil, then this statement would be fine. It would be similar to saying:

"Don't like chocolate ice cream? Don't eat it."

But what if you saw a bumper sticker that said this?

"Don't like slavery? Don't own one."

You might say "Wait a minute?! That doesn't make sense! Slavery is morally wrong! It's not okay for those who like owning slaves to do so! It's morally wrong for everyone! No one should be allowed to own slaves!"

There is a difference between moral vs. preferences claims. We allow people to choose their preferences only when we are not talking about something that is morally wrong.

In Summary

The point is this: If the unborn were just "tissue" and not a separate, living, human being, then no justification for abortion would even be necessary. But since the unborn is a separate, living, human being, no justification for abortion is adequate.