The continued ignorance of some Americans on the topic of abortion amazes me. You would think that in a modern world full of scientific and technological advance, the logic of pro-choicers would follow these advances at least adequately enough to admit that abortion is wrong. This unfortunately is not the case, especially with how many pro-choice articles remain on this site and on the web. What is even more dangerous than the ideals of the pro-choice, however, is the fact that they remain vocal in their ignorance, and continue to shape the laws of our country!

This isn't to say that the pro-choice platform wasn't at one time understandable in one way. Many pro-choice advocates were/are die-hard post modernists, demanding only "science" and refusing to use their brains with the intuition and rationality that separates humans from other animals. In 1973, we didn't have the scientific evidence that we have today to prove that a child is alive inside of the womb, so it is understandable that in their short-circuitry known as brains they may have sided with abortion.

Unfortunately, ignorance cannot protect them today. With modern technology (such as 4D imaging of the womb), it is impossible to deny the humanness of these fetus' that were once passed off as useless tissue. Fetus' in their 12th week have been seen sucking their thumbs (a very human habit, wouldn't you agree?) The humanness of the fetus is undeniable.

And even if a fetus isn't a human, since when did we lose our collective minds as a people and forget about potential? Has anyone ever thought to wonder why a 12 week old fetus can be aborted without penalty, while in the state of California it is illegal ($50,000 fine) to damage the egg of an unborn bald eagle? Lets use our brains! It's illegal to damage a bald eagle egg because we rationally (and correctly) know that even though the eagle is not completely formed or hatched, it WILL become a bald eagle if given the necessary time! Ironically, this law was passed because bald eagles were on the US endangered species list. I suppose an argument leveled against the above might be that animals on the endangered species list are of more importance than other animals (after all, there are a lot of humans anyway).

I can't help but sit here and be amazed by how lopsided the debate is on this issue! What should I write about next? The science backing pro-life? The abortion industries comparison to other genocides in history? More double-standards

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

---

Add your voice

Know something about Reflections: Abortion?
We want to hear your view. Write now!