by Jared Garrett

Created on: June 04, 2007

Should there be restrictions on the availability of abortion, except when the mother's life is at stake? Yes. In fact, one could go further and say there should even be restrictions on abortion for those mothers whose life is indeed at stake. This second set of restrictions would still be easier to fulfill, but do we ever really want to blithely decide that any abortion is okay? I think not, as that would basically be the straw that broke the moral camel's back.

So a woman gets pregnant. Perhaps the pregnancy is not planned for, but happens between two consenting and loving adults. Abortion is an option. So is adoption. Abortion, without equivocation, means killing the fetus. Killing the fetus of a human being. It is killing. And it is killing in order to absolve oneself of responsibility and to clean up an undesired mess. Do we really want to have this be a legal option? Some question whether the fetus is human yet. Are we serious here? In a dog, do we question whether the fetus in the dog's womb is a dog yet? Nope. We see that it is a dog. Humans are different because of their ability to choose and their cognizant abiliities. Babies even after they are born do not yet have these abilities, yet we consider them human. So the argument that makes the definition of human fuzzy holds no water. None. Nor does it hold amniotic fluid. That is a person in there. Abortion means killing. So killing the fetus to divorce oneself from the responsibility of childcare or adoption, is killing for convenience. This kind of abortion deserves enthusiastic banning.

Furthermore, there are even restricitions on cutting down trees and killing animals. Are we valuing flora fauna over babies by not restricting most abortions?

So a woman gets pregnant. However, perhaps this is a pregnancy that endangers the woman. Perhaps if the woman carries the fetus to term, her life and/or the baby's life will be in danger. The woman is faced with a choice. Does she carry on with the pregnancy, or does she end it, choosing the safer route for her and/or her family? This is an area in which the woman should be allowed to choose. Why? Because her right to life as a human being is endangered by one who cannot yet choose. One for whom she is responsible. This is her choice and should be allowed by law. Again, if the woman's life is in danger, the government has no business taking that decision from her. In fact, it infringes on her privacy and right to life if the government steps in. However, the government should never go so far as to mandate abortions in these cases.

Despite all of this, the fact is that most abortions are not in cases of the mother's life being in danger. Most of them are abortions of convenience, to absolve mother (and father many times) of responsibility for their actions. Abortion is not a contraceptive. It is the destroying of a human fetus.

Learn more about this author, Jared Garrett.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.