As far as I know, I’ve never once cited Fox News or Wikipedia for any of the facts I share. Allow me to address your other statements one at a time:
“It is not murder.“ Perhaps by the current legal definition, you’re right. However, it IS the intentional and premeditated killing of an innocent human being, which is currently recognized as wrong under every circumstance except abortion. This is an inconsistency in the legal system which needs to be addressed.
“All that is being done, is taking cells out of a uterus.” Yes I know, when you put death into simplified terms — when it’s not gruesome or bloody or painful — it’s much easier to support. “All that is being done, is injecting a few milligrams of liquid into his arm.” “All that is being done, is pulling my finger back a few millimeters to squeeze a trigger.” The fact of the matter is, those cells which joined together at conception are a living, developing human being who looks exactly like what they’re supposed to for their age, and exactly like YOU did when you were so young. To suggest that killing them is moral because they lack the same capabilities or appearance as you and I, is just plain ableism.
“It is not a human.“ Do you want to take that up with biology? They are undoubtedly as human as you and I.
“It has no heartbeat.” This is true, they have no heartbeat before 21 days old. They’re not supposed to. That’s not how human development works. They’re still a living human, and abortion still ends their life. Should we kill them because of something they cannot control, and which will change in a very insignificant amount of time?
“It’s not a baby.“ We can argue semantics all you want, even though multiple dictionaries acknowledge the legitimacy of calling an unborn child a "baby.” Let’s say for arguments’ sake they’re not a baby — does that alone make it okay to kill them? Does that make them any less human, or make them guilty of a crime worthy of death?
“It’s just cells.“ So are you. So am I. That’s all anything or anyone really is, when you simplify our existence. We’re all just the same clumps of cells we’ve ALWAYS been, wandering around on another gigantic clump of earth matter. Does that mean we should kill each other?
“Once you’ve passed a certain trimester, and decide you don’t want the baby, that’s murder.” Hold on a minute. You’re saying it’s okay to kill the exact same human being UNLESS they’ve reached a certain age? That’s ageist. It’s saying, “As long as this human has only been developing for 200 days you can kill them, but once they reach 201 days it’s murder.” What’s the difference? You’re drawing an arbitrary line in someone else’s worth, and using that shaky foundation as grounds to kill them.
Furthermore, to say this from the pro-choice standpoint is to imply that the woman has any less right to her body once the human inside of her reaches a certain age/weight/stage of development. Either the thing developing in her womb is an innocent human being at every stage of their development, or it’s not a human at all, which means she should be able to abort it up until the day it’s due to exit her birth canal (during which event NO biological change happens in the fetus), or even up until the moment the umbilical cord is cut (as it is still connected to her body) — FOR ANY REASON.
This ask is one of many which show that a large portion of those who support abortion are either lacking in scientific knowledge or logical consistency. Madison, I want to challenge you and others like you to take a closer look at the issue you’re supporting. Look at the facts. Look at what abortion is* and does*. Look at who you are, who you’ve always been, and use that knowledge to make an informed decision about whether you support life or death*.
*tw: blood & gore
Be a voice for the voiceless by subscribing to our weekly digest and sharing the truth with the world.