The Murder That We Don’t Discuss

Published by

theholycrossspire

May 30, 2017

By Hanna Seariac, Chief Web Editor

It is simply outrageous that the US and European countries have legalized murder. Doesn’t that sound awful? Well, abortion and child euthanasia are legal forms of murder. Currently, abortion is legal in most of Europe, United States, Canada, and other countries, while child euthanasia is legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. The fact that this is legal should throw us into great alarm and concern.

Let’s begin with a quick biology lesson. When a male and female participate in intercourse, the male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract, allowing for sperm cells to potentially fertilize an egg in the fallopian tube. Once an egg is fertilized, this fertilized egg becomes a zygote cell, which contains DNA from both gamete (i.e.- both the male and female’s DNA). Once the egg is fertilized, it fulfills all of the requirements for life that molecular biology maintains, or in other words, life begins at conception.

In Human Life and Health Care Ethics, Vol. 2, James Bopp writes “the first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception… every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell.” Numerous scientific studies[1] reveal that life indeed begins at conception. In fact, the American College of Pediatricians posted a study[2] that contains the follow quote: “The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception- fertilization.” To the general scientific community, the idea that life begins anywhere but conception is scientifically inaccurate[3]. However, for some reason, pro-abortionists continue to suggest otherwise with minimal scientific backing. If life begins at conception, as science and common sense shows us over and over again, then when you have an abortion, you are taking a life; you are murdering.

This is where common sense comes into play. If science tells us that life begins at conception, common sense tells us that that life is human. The real dispute with life beginning at conception is whether or not the life that began is human. However, human life is produced through this process and this fertilized egg, if all goes well, can be nothing except a human life. Even if the fertilized egg does not make it to the uterus, it still fulfilled the conditions of life and could be nothing else besides the beginnings of human life. The only logical demarcation for where human life begins is conception.

Another common argument that pro-abortionists use is the “it’s the woman’s body.” This grossly misrepresents the entire process of reproduction. The life created is an individual that comes from both a male and female and cannot come from just a female. This life exists in the female’s body. Biologically, the life contains a different genetic composition than the female, therefore, it cannot be a part of the female. Except in cases of rape, the female decided to have sex. If you choose to have sex, you are choosing the possibility that you conceive a child. In cases of rape, I understand that the victim has had one of the worst things in the world done to them, but that does not give you the power to decide whether or not someone else lives. If the person needs to give the baby up for adoption or wants to try and raise them, we need to provide counseling and aid, not tell them that killing a baby would make them feel better because it will not. In fact, that would create guilt for the mother; guilt that does not need to exist.

Any form of abortion is murder. Science, conscience, and common sense all tell us that. We need to immediately stop abortions and focus on making parenthood more respected in our society. Children are a gift from God, not something that we should kill or let be killed.

Child euthanasia, similar to abortion, is pure evil. In Belgium and the Netherlands, if children are gravely ill or have significant enough birth defects, they can be euthanized. This is murder. We can determine the probability of someone’s chance to live, but we can and have been wrong on this front. Miracles, medical or not, do occur, we can be wrong about someone’s prospects. This does not give us the right to decide whether or not another person lives. Intentionally killing a person is murder, there is no way to skirt around this.

The argument for child euthanasia is that it is more merciful to kill a suffering person than let them continue to suffer. However, children do not understand the concept of death until they reach a certain age and we do not know the future of these children. Countless people have suffered from terrible illnesses, been a single second away from death, and then lived and lived happily. As a human race, our first priority should be each other. If it is not each other, then we have nothing to live for and we are worthless. However, if we value life and each other enough, we recognize that killing is wrong and we want to make sure that everyone feels like it is good that they are alive. If someone does not wish to be alive, whatever the reason, it is pure evil to tell them that they should die because they will feel better. That says that you do not care, love, or value the person in any respect.

In order for someone to argue that abortion and child euthanasia should be legal, they would have to argue that murder should be legal. Abortion and child euthanasia are just as cruel as deliberately and carefully thinking about killing someone and then killing them. They are just as cruel because the concept is the exact same.

Whether or not abortion and child euthanasia should be legal should not be a debate. Abortion is not a female right; it is not a feminist position to think that abortion should be legal; it is an evil way of thinking. Child euthanasia is another example of deliberately killing someone and saying that their life does not have enough value to continue. Who are we if we allow abortion and child euthanasia? Who are we to decide who lives and who does not? Who are we to murder ceaselessly? This is not a matter of politics, this is not a matter of religion, this is a matter of fundamentally going against humanity and pure evil.

[1] https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

[2] https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

[3] http://naapc.org/why-life-begins-at-conception/

7 responses to “The Murder That We Don’t Discuss”

larryzb

June 28, 2017

One always sees the same tired old canards served up by those who support the abortion industry.

That said, one fact that the pro-life groups need to come to terms with is that abortion will not end until women, en masse, reject it. Thus, the question becomes when will women reject abortion?

Too many of these pro life groups make excuses for women seeking abortions. Women know full well what they are doing. (Demand creates its own supply. Who is demanding abortion? We see angry women at these pro-abortion demonstrations.)

Loading…

Reply
Hanna Seariac

June 17, 2017

Olivia, religious beliefs do not play a huge role in the abortion debate. Yes, certain religions strongly advocate that abortion is evil, but there is a fundamental difference between morality and religion. Religions call abortion morally incorrect using the same basis as the secular argument for why murder is wrong; our society does not allow for murder because the government’s job is to protect its citizens. Therefore, the abortion issue comes down to whether or not you consider unborn children citizens, which religions certainly have an opinion about, but is not an opinion exclusive to religion. Instead, it stems from the moral belief that murder is wrong. The only productive argument for abortion is that the unborn children are not citizens, therefore, not entitled to government protection; that is a biological argument, not a religious argument. Intercourse is exercising your ability to procreate; the government places age restrictions on consent, but otherwise, you have the decision either to procreate or not procreate since sex can (and does) result in procreation. It is not enslavement to say that since you willingly did a certain act, you are responsible for its consequences. You do not eat burgers and fries every day and expect not to gain weight because you understand that there is a direct relationship between fatty foods and gaining weight. Similarly, there is a direct relationship between having sex and getting pregnant. Genetically, the child is different than the mother, therefore is not the mother’s body, and should have its own rights. When children are born in rape, incest, poverty, etc., it certainly isn’t the most preferable situation at all, but I do not think that the situation should determine whether or not the life should exist. The government should provide more resources for those born in situations that are difficult to cope with and personally I think we all need to support single motherhood, but until we get to that point, we should remember that the only people who say that certain children should not be born have already been born themselves.

Loading…

Reply
Olivia Pan

June 16, 2017

Peter, you are in utter and complete denial if you do not believe that religious beliefs play a huge role in the abortion debate. When a government tries to control the reproductive rights of its citizens in any way, it is enslavement. I also disagree with your belief that a child would say only that regarding being brought into this world. Some might say, “Why did you bring me into this world, born of rape, incest, abuse, poverty, or of being unwanted?”

Loading…

Reply
Peter Mayhew

June 15, 2017

@Olivia:
You do have control over your own body. That control does not extend to the life of another human being as that would be unconstitutional. Especially one that can’t speak for itself. Presumably though, if it could, it would probably say “Please don’t kill me, you unconscionable asshole.” Also, Hanna noted that “this is not a matter of religion”- she argued on a moral level and did a great job.

@concerned
Please explain to me in plain english how Hanna’s views are in any way sexist?

Loading…

Reply
Hanna Seariac

May 30, 2017

Thank you for your respectful comment, Olivia, I appreciate that you can disagree with someone and still be respectful. I understand that the government is based on a separation of church and state, and I agree with that (Jesus says render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s), but the government does inherently make stances on moral issues for the protection of its citizens, which I believe includes the unborn (killing, stealing, etc. are all moral issues). With abortion, I do not see it as an issue coming from religious beliefs, but rather an issue of preservation of life. I purposefully classified it as murder because I did not want to make a heavy theological argument, but rather demonstrate that I believe that it is a matter of science, reason, conscience, and law (our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence represent the marriage of reason and conscience for governing a group of people). I also agree with you that as women, we should have control over our own bodies, but with pregnancy, I believe there are two individuals involved. While the woman should be able to control her own body, I believe that the fetus, baby, whatever you wish to call it, also has the same rights as a woman (and that abortion usurps those rights) because there is scientific backing that you can classify it as human life. I understand that some people can believe abortion is wrong, but still see it as a human right, and therefore be pro-choice, I just do not see abortion as the right of any person on the grounds that regardless of the stage of development that a baby is in, it is still as human as the mother.

Loading…

Reply
Olivia Pan

May 30, 2017

Being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion, but at the end of the day, having control over our own bodies as women is our right. It is the right of every human being to have physical control over their body. Let’s not forget that our government is based on a separation of church and state. Abortion is a moral issue, and the government has no place in deciding issues of morality springing from their own religious beliefs. So while you are entitled to have that moral/religious belief, the government has no place in inserting religion in governing citizens.

Loading…

Reply
Concerned

May 30, 2017

This article expresses the authors personal viewpoint as a catch-all solution to what she believes is “murder”. The views are sexist and borderline insane in their implication.

Loading…

Reply