Life

Logical Sequence:

1. Conception is when DNA is combined between a man and a woman to begin a new human being.  
2. At no other point can you reasonably define a person as human or alive than at the creation of their DNA.
3. A person is therefore human and alive at conception.

Not all people believe this.  Usually, this is not because it does not make logical sense or that it does not ring true.  It's either that they choose not to believe it OR they believe the "rights" of the woman bearing that baby are more important than the "rights" (e.g. life) of the baby inside her.

I'd rather not use squishy diplomatic terms.  It's insulting and it masks the severity of what's been going on for 41 years now.  "Abortion"?  "Terminating the pregnancy"?  Let's be adults here.  It's the "killing of a human being".  

Here is the bottom line:  When the spermatozoa enters and fertilizes the egg, life has begun.  Nothing will stop the life now growing from fully forming in the womb unless it is killed or it dies on its own due to complications or by accident (just like any human).  Whether or not it looks like a baby (or a bean or a "mass" or whatever) from the first seconds of its life is irrelevant.  It is what it is ... a life ... with the same God-given rights any of us has.  

Let's be clear - what a woman does with her own body is up to her.  No arguments there.  Freedom to Choose certainly extends to a certain point, and if the woman chooses to cut off one of her ears, or her legs, that is her choice.  But the life inside of her is NOT her - nor is the life even a part of her.  She is a separate life - a separate human that is growing inside the mother.  She is completely dependent on the mother to grow to "term", but that still does not give the mother the right to kill the human inside her.  

Let's think this through:  That human will grow to a baby, then to a toddler, then to a teenager, then to an adult.  At each of these stages of life, a human being is dependent upon the mother to varying degrees.  So, if one believes they can kill the human inside the womb, what stops them from killing that human once outside the womb, 7 inches away, minutes after birth ... or when she is living in the bedroom down the hall, or living on the other side of town?  

• How about before they are 1?  Surely then, right?  Why not?  The baby is still entirely dependent on Mom or someone?  She should have that "right to choose" ..
• How about before 10?  Still ... dependent on Mom or someone.  I mean, what if the kid is a real hassle.  A total brat.  Then, right?
• Absolute insanity to think this way.  You get my point.  

This is where the arguments start to flow.  

Argument:  You're a man.  How dare you tell women what to do with THEIR bodies.  

Counter-Argument:  See everything I've said above.  One, I'm a human taking exception to the murder of another human.  Doesn't matter if this author is a male or female human.  Killing the baby is wrong.  Period.  Two, it's connected to the woman's body, getting nourishment, but it is NOT (as mentioned) a body part of the mother.

Argument:  I would rather not subject that baby to the life it would have to lead given the situation (whatever situation).

Counter-Argument:  So, what is the worst that will happen to the baby?  That she is killed in the horrible environment into which she has been born?  So, killing her now to avoid the risk of being killed later?  That's some wacky logic.  

Argument:  The mother is just a girl herself, too young to have a baby.  It will ruin her life because of a youthful mistake she made.

Counter-Argument:  The baby is younger, and I'm pretty sure murdering him will ruin his life even more.  Sorry no one warned the young woman (by default she is a woman if she became pregnant - girls can't get pregnant) that sex can result in pregnancy, but ignorance is not bliss on this one.  The baby should not have to die for her mistake.

Argument:  Until 25 weeks into the pregnancy, the baby can't feel anything.  

Counter-Argument:  It's still extinguishing life.  And besides, I know many grown people with nerve conditions where they can't feel anything.  Okay to kill them?  Of course not.

Argument:  How about in the case of rape and other horrible, unthinkable things that should happen to no woman.

Counter-Argument:  God does not want any of these things to happen.  He cries with, and has compassion for, all of these women.  But He has compassion for the life that has been created, too.  That life does not know how it was conceived, nor does it matter to that human.  He or she has a right to live.  

Argument:  How about incest?
Counter-Argument:  Imagine the kid is 2 years old, standing next to you.  He was the product of incest.  Kill him, then?  Of course not.  Same goes for the child in the womb.

Argument:  Well, what about in a situation where medical complications arise and you must decide between the life or health of the Mother and the life of the baby?

Counter-Argument:  There is certainly an "it depends" here, but not as strong as many think.  Bottom line, one option you're considering is the killing of one to save the other.  Which human life is more valuable?  A reasonable person would say that they are equal, no caveats.  So if it's a decision between the mother's health (not their immediate life) and the life of the child inside her, it would seem the decision is obvious.  Save the life of the child versus killing her.  If it will mean the mother's chances of death is increased, still obvious.  No matter how high the probability is that the Mom will die, killing the baby is still 100% chance of death for the baby.  If one will die if the other lives, that is now a true "right to choose" scenario I suppose.  Although, what an unfortunate decision to have to make.

Argument:  Well, I don't personally believe ...

Counter-Argument:  Unless you have some absolute and objective foundation for what you "believe", save it.  I can equally say, "I personally believe that [fill in something off the wall, ridiculous statement]" and you'd say, "What are you basing that belief on?"  If I answer with "I just feel that way" or "Nothing", you'd laugh.  Same here.  

Final Thoughts

So, of the more than 55 million "Right to Choose" killings since Roe v Wade in 1973 (more than the populations of Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Iowa combined) how many do you think were in response to rape, incest, or a decision between the life of the baby or the mother?  I don't need to state statistics for you to know the answer.  Most killings are the result of a woman deciding that she'd rather not have this one.  It's a convenience thing.  

"I mean, what's the biggie?  You can't see the baby ... he's all hidden inside, so ending his life isn't the same as when you can see the person, right?"  That is just crazy talk.  

This is simple logic.  Killing is wrong, no matter if the person is 127 years old or negative-9 months, inside the womb or outside the womb, fully-formed or a viable living cell made up of the DNA combination of a woman and a man.  

If an alien came down from space and asked about this, and you explained "Right to Choose" to him, he'd think we were the most savage animals he'd ever heard of.  

.......

If you've had an abortion, God forgives you.  Accept Jesus into your life and leave that behind. 

If you're considering abortion, please don't.  Think through the points I've made above.

If you still disagree with me, I will be praying for you.  I love you regardless of what you believe on this topic, as does God.

Watch this short video, and join the fight to "End Abortion in Our Generation":