THE ISSUE OF ABORTION

Wayne D. Leeper

 

   The issue of abortion is without a doubt the predominate social issue of our times and the issue that causes the most heated discussion. However, it is possible to determine how the founding fathers would have come down on this issue. The first question to be asked is, does this issue fall in the realm of the Laws of Creation or the Laws of Redemption. In other words, is the right to life of the fetus an unalienable right bestowed by the Creator or does it fall under the law of redemption which is the purview of the individual and God?  The primary question we must address is, “Is abortion the taking of a human life, which by any definition qualifies as a relationship between human beings and thus the legitimate purview of the state, or is it, as some would argue, simply the removal of a not yet human mass from the uterus of a woman?”  The answer to this question determines whether or not the unborn child is protected by the unalienable right to life as endowed by God, proclaimed by our Declaration of Independence and, therefore, protected by the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.

   The answer to two questions provide the answer to this dilemma. First, is a fetus a living orgasm and second, if so, is that living orgasm a human being? No one would argue that the fetus is indeed a living organism. Therefore, the only remaining question is whether or not it is a human being in the earliest stages of development or simply a mass of tissue? If a seed of corn is planted in the ground, is it corn? When it first germinates and begins to take root is it corn? When the first shoot breaks through the ground is it corn? Indeed, we may ask, is there any stage between planting and maturity that a seed of corn ceases to be corn? The answer is obvious. This is true because of an immutable law of nature which says, “Every plant and every animal reproduces only after its own kind. By the same immutable law of nature, the fetus is indeed a living human being in the earliest stages of development.

   Therefore, as a human being, it must be fully entitled to the unalienable “right to life” as proclaimed by our Declaration of Independence and protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to our Constitution. The 14th Amendment clearly states that no state, including the federal government, has the right to deprive an individual human being of the unalienable rights of life, liberty or property without due process of law. A law passed that would deprive a human being of their unalienable rights requires the abrogation of our two most basic founding documents, would have been objectionable to our founders, and must be declared unconstitutional by our courts. If human life in America is not judiciously protected at every level the day will come when it is not protected at any level.

   The simple fact is that virtually all pregnancies in this nation are a matter of choice.  Men and women choose to indulge in unprotected sex. With the information available, both in school and in the media, and the fact that contraceptive aids are available free to all, there is absolutely no reason for a woman to become pregnant. Some talk about a woman’s right to choose. I support her right to choose, but when she chooses to indulge in sex, protected or not, she has no right to kill a child in order to rectify her mistake.

   But, some would ask, what about cases of “rape, incest, and the protection of the life of the mother?” This is a legitimate question. The cases of rape and incest, however, are not entitled to the same consideration as the life of the mother. The first two involve none life threatening situations while the latter is a matter of life and death.  In the first place we need to acknowledge the fact that these “exceptions” comprise less that 2% of the abortions performed in this country.  So at the outset we are talking about a very few cases, never the less, they do occur.

   First consider the question of a pregnancy resulting from “rape or incest.” All too often these cases involve young girls who are forced or coerced into having sex with an older man. It is indeed a heart rending situation when one of these young girls finds herself pregnant through no fault of her own. We as a society should provide that child with everything necessary, including free medical care, counseling and adoptive services, to make her ordeal as easy as possible under the circumstances. We should also require that she identify the father and punish him to the fullest extent of the law.

   That said, is a fetus that exist and lives as a result of rape or incest less deserving of having its life protected by law than the fetus which results from the union of two loving parents? Is it somehow the fault of the fetus that its existence is the result of rape or incest? If not, then why is it not entitled to the same protection of law as any other fetus? The answer is obvious. That fetus is entitled by nature and nature’s God to the same unalienable rights as any other fetus. According to the thinking and writings of our founding fathers its right to life cannot be abrogated by laws passed by the state.

   The truly difficult decision is that concerning the life of the mother. There do exist situations, though a minuscule fraction of pregnancies, where a doctor must decide to end the life of a fetus in order to protect the life of the mother. I claim no personal expertise in this matter so I consulted a friend who is a doctor, though not a gynecologist. He cited the case where the placenta of a 16 week old fetus becomes detached from the uterus of the mother which results in uncontrolled bleeding. Even though the living fetus is not viable at that age, it must be removed from the mother if she is to live. He goes on to state that as a doctor he knows of no situation in which a viable fetus cannot be removed from the womb of the mother without killing it. That is to say, that it is never necessary to kill a viable fetus in order to save the life of the mother.

   This is an area in which the state has absolutely no authority to speak one way or the other. Medical decisions must be made by doctors in consultation with the patient. This type of decision falls in the same category as the removal of a breast to prevent the spread of cancer, or the removal of a limb to prevent the spread of gangrene.

   There is one fact that is often omitted from this debate. That fact is that the doctor does not intentionally kill one in order to save the other. The doctor makes the necessary decision to concentrate his skill on saving one and letting nature take its course with the other. This is a vast difference from the uninformed advocates of abortion who somehow believe that saving of the live of the mother necessitates the killing of a child. As medical knowledge progresses it may someday not be necessary to make such decisions, but until then the doctor is far more qualified to make that decision than is the state. Therefore, this one exception to the law regarding abortion should stand but it must be the doctor and his patient who make the decision, not the government.

   Abortion on demand is a cancer that will ultimately destroy our society as surely as cancer ultimately destroys almost every person who is infected by it.