America's Greatest Tragedy: The Killing of Babies by Their Own Mothers

Women Ending the Lives of Babies in the Name of Convenience

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of
the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

It's one of the most horrible crimes imaginable. A woman becomes pregnant, yet instead of being
filled with joy and happiness at the thought of becoming a parent, she makes an appointment and
has her baby killed.

The saddest of this? The baby hasn't even taken the first breath of air, has never been held, has
never been rocked to sleep ... and never will. The "mom" took all that away from the baby by
ending his or her life, calling it abortion.

There are far too many people that think a baby that is still in the mother's body growing is not a
baby and that it's okay to kill the baby because it's still in the mother's body. Killing is killing,
and murder is murder. The fact that the baby is still inside the mother's body doesn't make taking
a life anything less than killing. It simply means the baby is still growing inside the mother's
body.

When a woman is pregnant, she doesn't say her fetus just kicked her. She will say that her baby
just kicked her. When a new mom is shopping for things for her baby that's on the way, she won't
say she went shopping for fetus clothes or a fetus bed, a fetus stroller, fetus bottles, and the like.
But rather the mom will say that she went shopping for baby clothes and a baby bed, baby
bottles, a baby stroller, etc. She doesn't say she found a cute pink or blue fetus blanket.

A pregnant woman, a new mom, will call her baby just that, a baby. Friends and family that
might make someone handcrafted for the new baby won't give it to the mom at the baby shower
and call it a fetus or tissue gift, nor do we have fetus or tissue showers, but rather we have baby
showers.

A woman that has only the thought of killing her baby before it's born will no doubt call her baby
a fetus, as will abortion clinics and those that want you to believe that killing your baby is okay
and the thing to do, that there's nothing wrong in murdering your baby before it takes its first
breath of air. They call it the medical term of fetus because that makes it easier in their minds to
commit the crime of murdering the baby. After all, if they try to take away the 'baby' out of the
baby, then it makes it easier on their conscience to

Many people believe abortion is a moral issue, but it is also a constitutional issue. It
is a woman's right to choose what she does with her body, and it should not be
altered or influenced by anyone else. This right is guaranteed by the ninth
amendment, which contains the right to privacy. The ninth amendment states: "The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people." This right guarantees the right to women,
if they so choose, to have an abortion, up to the end of the first trimester.
Regardless of the fact of morals, a woman has the right to privacy and choice to
abort her fetus. The people that hold a "pro-life" view argue that a woman who has
an abortion is killing a child. The "pro-choice" perspective holds this is not the case.
A fetus is not yet a baby. It does not posess the criteria derived from our
understanding of living human beings. In a notable defense of this position,
philosopher Mary Anne Warren has proposed the following criteria for "person-
hood": 1) consciousness (of objects and events external and or internal to the
being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain. 2) reasoning (the developed
capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems) 3) self-motivated activity
(activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control)
4) the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite
variety of possible contents, but on indefinltely many possible topics. 5) the
presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or social, or both.
(Taking Sides -Volume 3). Several cases have been fought for the right to choose.
Many of these have been hard cases with very personal feelings, but the
perserverance showed through and gives us the rights we have today. Here are
some important cases: 1965 - Griswold v. Connecticut - upheld the right to privacy
and ended the ban on birth control....

Because it is a source of physical and moral harm.

An abortion is the removal of an embryo or foetus, [either a potential human life] or

a living entity depending on your religious thinking.

If you believe that it is a potential life, then you must establish strict guidelines on
who makes the decision to terminate --- Current law argue only physician may abort
-- if a person beats a woman --- that person can be charge with homicide. [Physician
once took the Hippocratic oath which forbids aborting a woman.] Abortion are then
morally only allowed to save the existing life of the mother.

If you believe it is a live then abortion is Murder.

To those that remove all aspect of life from this equation "clump of cells" equal to
hair or toenails, must admit that this is arbitrary and illogical --- for hair or toenails
are what they are when the excised. A foetus has the potential of being a son or
daughter, an heir, a person with full rights in a set amount of time --- to the "clump"
theorist, it metamorphose in a person "magically". Now if this "legal" clump
becomes a person at the start of "person-hood" could not the laws be written to
make a "person" become a clump of useless tissue and must be excised? Nazi
Germany, with full announcement of the governments intent to remove the
"useless" Mass Murder of the Aged and Infirm Between 1939-1941 about 70,000
German citizens (not Jews, Gypsy, et al.) were murder.

It was voted on in a Democratic vote to declare infirm people "useless" so that they
could be excised.
If you hold the arguement for foetus that they are "clumps" how many years will it
be before ones parents or son or daughter returns to being an excisable "clump of
cells"?

JANUARY 15, 2005 —

Social Security reform could be for Republicans the kind of donnybrook that health care reform was for
Democrats in 1994. The magnitude of the political risk is staggering. On Capitol Hill, many Republicans
wonder if they are being led off a cliff. What does President Bush think he's doing?
Well, he says, there's a Social Security crisis. "The crisis is now," Bush said in December. But he must
know this isn't true. Economically speaking, stabilizing Social Security's long-term finances is a task of
only middling difficulty and importance; it requires no fundamental change in the program and need not be
tackled right away. As for private Social Security accounts, they are — again, economically speaking — a
solution in search of a problem.
No, what Bush and the Republicans are focused on is not the economy, stupid. It is conservative social
engineering on the grandest possible scale.

When people talk about Social Security reform, they usually mean "reforms," plural. They're usually
linking two kinds of change that are conceptually and mechanically distinct. Reform No. 1 would reduce
the growth of benefits, or raise taxes, to bring the program into long-term fiscal balance. Reform No. 2
would structurally revamp the program by creating private accounts: Part of your Social Security payroll
tax would go into a bank account with your name on it, to be used to finance your future benefits, instead
of going to the U.S. Treasury to finance the benefits of current retirees, as it does now

Congress can make one reform, both reforms, or neither. Doing either, by itself, is politically difficult, but
doing both together — simultaneously cutting and restructuring the program — is startlingly audacious.
That is what Bush seems likely to propose. Why take the chance? On close examination, the economic
payoffs are surprisingly unimpressive. The moral and political dividends are, potentially, another matter.

The fiscal payoff. Social Security is often said to be insolvent, because in about 2018 its benefit payments
will exceed the revenues it collects through its dedicated payroll tax. Then the general budget will begin to
subsidize payouts. But this is no kind of crisis. Social Security's surpluses have subsidized general
budget spending for decades; if the government needs to use general revenues to subsidize Social
Security, that will be no tragedy.

The real fiscal crisis is not that Social Security will be technically insolvent in a few years, it's that the
whole U.S. government is genuinely insolvent right now. Washington's large deficits suck in and burn off
capital that could otherwise be invested for future economic growth.

Indeed, Social Security's difficulties pale next to those of Medicare, which is headed for a real crisis.
Current projections show spending for Medicare overtaking spending for Social Security in the early
2020s, and then soaring right off the chart, whereas Social Security outlays level off (as a share of gross
domestic product) in the mid-2030s.
Still, if Bush grasps the nettle of slowing Social Security's future growth, that would be both brave and
helpful (at least in the longer run, since the president promises to protect current retirees). On the other
hand, Bush's profligacy is largely to blame for the government's current fiscal disrepair, so Bush would be
saving us from himself.

In any case, Social Security can be brought into long-term balance without changing its structure, simply
by making it less generous. So why private accounts?

The retirement payoff. Advocates of private accounts note that stocks and other financial instruments pay
higher returns than the current Social Security program does. Along with better returns, however, comes
greater volatility. "You can get higher returns from the stock market if you're willing to tolerate higher risk,"
says Barry Bosworth, a Brookings Institution economist. "The one thing you can't have is a free lunch."
Some people (me, for instance) would rather take their chances in the stock market than leave their
pension to the tender mercies of Congress, but different people will make the call differently. Once risk is
accounted for, there is no windfall either way.

Anyway, moving Social Security assets into stocks can make some people better off, but it can't make
everyone better off, because someone would end up holding the government bonds that Social Security
holds today. As federal pension money moved into stocks, returns on stocks and bonds would shift in
complex ways, but this asset reshuffle would not enlarge the economy — just rearrange its composition.

The economic payoff. Could Social Security reforms improve economic growth? In principle, yes — by
increasing saving and investment, something the country badly needs to do. Slowing the growth of future
benefits would boost government saving in a few decades, if the government didn't just spend the
proceeds on some other form of consumption (a big "if"). Private accounts could also increase national
saving — if they were financed by cutting government spending or raising taxes, and if people didn't offset
their new private accounts by saving less in their 401(k) plans. Two more big ifs.

Individuals would probably offset their private Social Security accounts to some extent, but no one knows
how much. What is clear is that Congress would rather gargle battery acid than finance private accounts
by cutting spending or raising taxes. More likely, it would finance them by increasing the deficit. And so
the Treasury would borrow right back again the money that people deposit into their Social Security
accounts.

The net effect would be a wash — unless, that is, the higher deficits created by privatizing Social Security
would induce the government to tighten its belt. Many liberals fear that private Social Security accounts
are another Republican scheme to "starve the beast" in Washington. Well, maybe. But the record of Bush
and the Republicans suggests that they spend just as merrily whether the deficit is high or low.

The moral and political payoff. Earlier this month, a White House aide named Peter Wehner (director of
strategic initiatives) sent selected conservatives a memo making the case for Social Security reform. "We
consider our Social Security reform not simply an economic challenge, but a moral goal and a moral
good," he wrote. "If we succeed in reforming Social Security, it will rank as one of the most significant
conservative governing achievements ever."

The emphasis was revealing. The memo had little to say about long-term growth and other economic
effects of reform. It stressed moving "away from dependency on government and toward giving greater
power and responsibility to individuals." At the libertarian Cato Institute, Michael Tanner, the director of the
project on Social Security choice, makes the same case. "We're changing fundamentally the relationship
of people to their government," he says. It would be "the biggest shift since the New Deal."

Bingo. Once you cancel the zeros on both sides of the equation, neither creating private Social Security
accounts nor ratcheting down the growth of future benefits would be an economic milestone.
Conservatives need to frame Social Security reform as a dollars-and-cents issue, but that is not really
why they are excited. What they really hope to change is not the American economy but the American
psyche.

Conservatives used to speak derisively of liberal social engineering. The attempt to create private Social
Security accounts is, so to speak, conservative social counter-engineering. Government should help
provide for unforeseeable contingencies: tsunamis, unemployment, open-heart surgery. But if there is one
event in all of human life that is wholly foreseeable, it is the advent of old age. Why, then, shouldn't people
save for their own retirement, instead of relying on welfare from the government — which is what Social
Security, as currently constituted, really is?

Tanner argues that people who own assets behave differently and see their place in society in a different
light. Private accounts, he says, would encourage a culture of saving and personal responsibility; they
would discourage political class warfare; they may, he argues, improve work habits, and even reduce
crime and other social pathologies. Create private Social Security accounts, and millions of low-income
Americans will be stockholders and bondholders. Republican political activists look at the way portfolio
investors vote — and salivate at the prospect of millions more of them.

The 2004 exit polls suggested, to many conservatives, that "moral values" won the election for Bush. It
may seem odd, then, that his boldest post-election priority is not abortion or gay marriage or schools, but
Social Security. The key to the paradox is that Social Security reform is not, at bottom, an economic issue
with moral overtones. It is a moral issue with economic overtones.

"MORAL ISSUES CONFRONTING CHRISTIANS"

Abortion

INTRODUCTION

1. A moral issue that has long confronted Christians is abortion; in

1996 there were...
a. 1.37 million abortions in the USA
b. 42 million abortions worldwide
-- The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform
2. Why do women have abortions...?
a. 1% because of rape or incest
b. 6% because of potential health problems for the mother or child
c. 93% for social reasons (i.e., the child is unwanted or
inconvenient)
-- ibid.

3. At what gestational ages are abortions performed...?

a. 52% before the 9th week
b. 25% between the 9th and 10th week
c. 12% between the 11th and 12th week
d. 6% between the 13th and 15th week
e. 4% between 16th and 20th week
f. 1% (16,450/yr) after the 20th week (five months)
-- ibid.

[An estimated 43% of all women will have an abortion age 45. 47% of all
abortions are performed on women who have already had a previous
abortion. This behooves us to ask...]

I. WHAT IS ABORTION?

A. IN SIMPLEST TERMS...
1. Termination of a pregnancy before birth, resulting in the death
of the fetus - MSN Encarta
2. Spontaneous abortions due to injury or disorders is called a
miscarriage - ibid.
3. Induced abortions are intentionally brought on when a
pregnancy:
a. Is unwanted for various reasons
b. A risk to the mother's health
c. The fetus (child) is likely to have serious physical or
mental health problems - ibid.
-- Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before birth

B. IN SPECIFIC DETAILS...
1. Drug-based abortion methods
a. Combination of drugs (e.g., RU-486) which result in
contractions to expel the fetus
b. Taken or administered during the first weeks of a confirmed
pregnancy
2. Surgical abortion methods
a. Vacuum aspiration
1) Used in the 6th to 14th week of pregnancy
2) An electric pump is used to extract the fetus
3) Often followed by a scraping of the uterus
b. Dilation and curettage (D&C)
1) Used in the 6th to 16th week
2) Involves dilating the cervix and scraping the uterine
lining with a curette
c. Dilation and evacuation (D&E)
1) Used after the 16th week up to the 24th week
2) Involves greater dilation, suction, a large curette, and
 forceps
d. Induction abortion
1) Also used between the 16th and 24th week
2) Saltine solutions and other chemicals are used to induce
labor
e. Hysterotomy
1) Used at the end of the 2nd trimester and into the 3rd
trimester
2) Similar to a cesarean section, the uterus is cut open and
fetus is removed
f. Intact dilation and extraction (partial birth abortion)
1) Used at the end of the 2nd trimester and into the 3rd
trimester
2) The fetus is removed from the uterus through the birth
canal, feet first
3) Suction is used to remove brain and spinal fluid to
collapse the skull and allow complete removal of the
fetus
-- Abortion is the gruesome termination of a living organism

[Everyone agrees abortion is a terrible procedure. But our primary

concern about abortion involves the moral issue...]

II. IS ABORTION SINFUL?

A. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS...

1. About the unborn in the womb
a. They are formed by God - Psa 139:13-14; Jer 1:5; Isa 44:2
b. They are called "children" - Gen 25:21-22; 2Ki 19:3
1) The Hebrew word is ben
2) The same word for son - cf. Gen 4:25
c. They are called "babies" - Lk 1:41,44
1) The Greek word is brephos
2) The same word for newborns and older infants - cf. Lk 2:12,16;
18:15
2. About the death of the unborn child
a. Moses describes a case where a man strikes a pregnant woman,
causing a premature birth - Exo 21:22
b. If there is no harm to the child, the man is only fined
- Exo 21:22
c. If harm ensues, punishment is to meted proportionally:
"life for life..." - Exo 21:23-25
d. Note well:
1) The unborn fetus is just as much a human being as the
mother in this passage
2) Unintentional life-taking was usually not a capital
offense, but here it clearly was! - cf. Exo 21:12-13
3. About the death of the innocent
a. An abomination to God - Pr 6:17
b. The opposite to judgment and righteousness - Jer 22:3
-- The unborn are equal to live children; is it not a sin to
kill innocent children?

B. WHAT EARLY CHRISTIANS BELIEVED...

 1. "Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor,
again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" - Epistle of
Barnabas 19 (74 AD)
2. "You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn
child" - Didache 2:1 (150 AD)
3. "There are some women among you who by drinking special potions
extinguish the life of the future human in their very bowels,
thus committing murder before they even give birth." - Mark
Felix, Octavius 30 (170 AD)
4. "In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not
destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human
being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its
sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing;
nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born,
or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is
going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed."
- Tertullian, Apology 9:8 (210 AD)
5. "Now we allow that life begins with conception because we
contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking
its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul
does." - Tertullian, Apology 27 (210 AD)
6. Many others equated abortion with murder, including Hippolytus
(228 AD), Basil the Great (374 AD), John Chrysostom (391 AD),
and Jerome (396 AD)
-- From the beginning of early church history, abortion was
considered a sin

[The Biblical and Christian view of the intentional death of the unborn
has always been that it is murder. If so, then...]

III. WHAT IS A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE?

A. TO DEFEND THE HELPLESS...

1. We must support and uphold the weak - Ac 20:35; 1Th 5:14
a. Who is more weak than the innocent unborn child?
b. Who is more helpless than unborn babes unable to defend
themselves?
2. As Christians we cannot take the law into our own hands, nor
can we resort to violence
a. But we do have "weapons mighty in God" (meekness,
gentleness, truth) - 2Co 10:1-4
b. By which we can "cast down arguments...bringing every
thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" - 2Co 10:5
c. I.e., seek to lead others to a proper understanding of what
is right and true
3. As "citizen saints" living in a free society, we should also:
a. Pray for our leaders, that we may live peaceable, godly
lives - 1Ti 2:1-4
b. Elect those who respect God's Word on such issues, for it
can only "insure domestic tranquility...promote the general
welfare" of one's country - U. S. Constitution
c. Remembering that sin is a reproach to any nation - Pr 14:34
-- We should do whatever we can as peacemakers for Christ to
protect the helpless
 B. TO HELP THE VICTIMS...
1. Both mothers and the unborn, offering viable alternatives
(e.g., adoption)
2. Especially those suffering from abuse, incest, and rape
3. Willing to offer financial aid and counseling when needed - cf.
Ac 20:35
4. For women who have had abortions need forgiveness and
counseling
-- As individuals and as a society, we should support alternatives
to abortion and help to its victims (including those who have
had abortions)

C. RELATED CONCERNS...
1. What about women's rights...
a. To choose?
b. To privacy?
c. To control their own bodies?
2. Such rights are important, but...
a. Does a woman have the right to physically abuse her born
children?
b. Are mothers (or fathers) free to abuse children entrusted to
their care?
c. If mothers cannot abuse a child after birth, then why before
birth?
3. "It's my own body!" many women say; yet that not is not quite
accurate
a. A woman with child is not one body, but two
b. The woman's body is a host that nourishes the child
c. The child is a separate organism residing as guest
d. (Technically, the child is a parasite, but a benign
parasite)
e. It would be like a father with his child in his arms,
claiming he had the right to kill it
-- To kill a child in the name of private rights or personal
choice is selfish!

CONCLUSION

1. We live in a morally confused time...

a. We have laws that protect endangered animals, including their
unborn
b. But many consider it wrong to enact laws to protect the human
unborn!
c. In the name of personal choice, millions of lives are destroyed
each year
-- "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil..." - Isa 5:20

2. Our society has become like the ancient nations of old...

a. Who burned their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods
- Deut 12:31
b. Even the nation of Israel, in its decline - Psa 106:37-38
-- Today, many shed innocent blood, offering their children on the
idol of "pro-choice"
3. Our moral confusion is caused by the deceitfulness of sin...
a. Which darkens our understanding, alienates us from God - cf. Ep 4:17-19
b. Which blinds us and makes us past feeling, leading to lewdness and
greediness - ibid.
-- Sadly, many who would lead us politically and religiously are just
as blind

The only solution to the moral morass of our day is the truth that is in
Jesus, where all sinners can find not only truth, but also renewal,
righteousness, and holiness... - Ep 4:20-24

Abortion, legal and moral issues 
The controversy 
The morality and legality of abortion is an important topic in applied ethics and is also discussed
by legal scholars and theologians. Important facts about abortion are also researched by sociologists
and historians.

Abortion has existed in most societies, although it has often been opposed by institutionalized
governments and religions. In the 20th century abortion became legally accepted in most of Europe
and in the United States (In some European countries, such as Germany and Spain, abortion is
technically illegal even in the first trimester, although prosecution typically does not occur.)
Additionally, abortion is legal and accepted in China, India and other populous countries.

The Catholic Church remains opposed to the procedure, however, and in certain countries, notably the
United States and the (predominantly Catholic) Republic of Ireland, the controversy is still extremely
active, to the extent that even the names of the respective positions are subject to heated debate.
While those on both sides of the argument are generally peaceful, if heated, in their advocacy of their
positions, the debate is sometimes characterized by violence.

The central dilemma
The central dilemma in the abortion debate is the clash of presumed or perceived rights. On the one
hand, is a fetus an "unborn child" or "growing baby" (as those opposed to abortion commonly term it),
a human being with an inherent right to life? On the other hand, is a fetus not a person or even a
individual human being but rather a disposable part of a woman's body and therefore subject to a
woman's right to control her own body?

The question remains, at what point does the fetus become a person? Or, at what point should it be
regarded as a "human being with legal rights"?

How does one balance these respective rights, or do they both exist?

The extreme "pro-life" argument is that an embryo (and later, a fetus) is a human life–innocent and
worthy of protection–from the moment of conception and, possessing a right to life that should be
respected. Therefore, abortion under any circumstance is the killing of an innocent person--murder--
and thus wrong.
The extreme "pro-choice" argument is that a woman's right to control her own body always outweighs
any right claimed for the fetus, and that abortion is acceptable under any circumstance.

Underlying this debate is another debate, over the role of the state: to what extent should the state
interfere with a woman's body to protect the public interest, or to what extent should the state protect
the general interest, even if it means controlling a woman's body? This is a major issue in a number of
countries, such as India and China, which have tried to enforce forms of birth control (including forced
sterilization), and the United States, which historically has limited access to birth control.

The many and varied positions about abortion
The competing labels for positions tends to blur over important differences in what can be advocated
about abortion. In discussions of abortion it is of paramount importance to distinguish the variety of
conclusions that can be advocated on the subject. First, consider the unequivocal positions:

• Abortion is always morally permissible.

• Abortion is always immoral (morally impermissible).
• Abortion ought to be legal in every instance.
• Abortion ought to be illegal in every instance.

There is clearly a difference, for example, between the views that abortion is immoral and that it
should be illegal. It is possible to hold the views both that every instance of abortion is immoral and
also that it should never be illegal.

There are, in fact, several other positions that represent even greater extremes than these, though
they are not, strictly speaking, positions about abortion per se. On the one hand, there are some
persons who believe, virtually always on religious grounds, that birth control is morally impermissible;
they argue that the choice of whether a child should be created should always be left to God. On the
other hand, there are persons such as professor Peter Singer, who think that infanticide is morally
permissible and should be legally permissible, and there are cases of persons actually committing
infanticide. And some take the position that abortion ought to be compulsory, either in certain
situations — the Twelve Tables of Roman law required that deformed children be put to death — or as
a population control measure, as in the People's Republic of China.

There are also several more qualified positions about abortion, which represent mid-ground between
the relatively extreme positions that abortion is always moral, or never, and that it should always be
legal, or never. That is, the qualified positions are that abortion is sometimes moral and at other times
not, and in some cases it should be legal and in other cases not. Examples of these positions are:

• Abortion in the first trimester (or before the embryo or fetus is viable outside the womb) is
morally permissible; abortion after that time is immoral.
• Abortion in the first trimester (or before the embryo or fetus is viable outside the womb) ought
to be legal; abortion after that time ought to be illegal.
• Abortion up to the third trimester (so-called late-term abortion) is morally permissible; in the
third trimester, it is immoral.
• Abortion up to the third trimester ought to be legal; in the third trimester, it ought to be
illegal.
• Abortion should always be illegal, except in some special circumstances—for example, when
the mother's long-term health or life is at stake, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or
incest, or when the infant is deformed or likely to be born disabled.

The latter position represents a point of serious controversy among abortion foes, who feel that, in
those cases where the completion of a pregnancy would likely result in severe permanent physical
injury or death for the mother, abortion is morally permissible and/or should (continue to) be legally
permitted. Some oppose even this exception, however. Similarly, when pregnancy is the result of rape
or incest, the situation created—where the mother is bearing a rapist's child, or her close relative's—is
regarded as so morally repugnant that there is no moral obligation, and should be no legal obligation,
to continue the pregnancy. Again, some people will not make an exception even in such cases. Some
justify this with the severe depression, anxiety, and regret women may experience post-abortion.

The political debate tends to center on questions of legality, though such debates are often based on
moral questions. In the United States, the political debate centers on two questions:

1. Should "partial-birth abortions" (or "Intact dilation and extraction") for medical reasons related
to the mother's health [1] continue to be legal?
2. Should first-trimester abortions on demand continue to be legal? In the United States on a
federal level, this is tantamount to asking, "Should Roe v. Wade continue to be supported?"

As of November 5, 2003, United States President George W. Bush signed into law the "Partial-birth
Abortion Ban Act" which makes it illegal for anyone to perform the procedure. However, some abortion
practitioners represented by the ACLU have already filed a lawsuit protesting the law. So, at present,
the question still has a viable political life in the United States.

The second question is a matter of deep concern for many, but the chances of Roe v. Wade being
overturned are low at present. Related issues such as requiring parental consent for minors, waiting
periods, and education, are also in contention in some states. Other questions, such as federal funding
of abortions, and acts such as the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" also are in contention in the United
States.

In many countries, but most strikingly in the United States, the scientific, religious, and philosophical
communities have remained polarized on most of these issues. The controversy over abortion remains
a very emotionally charged issue, and difficult to resolve.

[1] The issue is actually more complicated than this, as opponents to a "health of the mother"
exception contend that legally this would create a loophole legalizing any abortion. These opponents
also claim that the procedure which is being banned is never necessary to preserve a woman's health.

Modern arguments about the legality and morality of 
abortion
Briefly, the basis of the view that all, or almost all, abortion should be illegal is the belief that the life
of a person—and all political rights attending it—begins at conception. Given that, one is invited to
consider the common assumption that each innocent person is entitled to the protection of society
against the deliberate destruction of its life by another person. The latter is a rough statement of the
right to life, which is guaranteed in many basic legal and political documents such as the United States
Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is the basis of laws
against murder. Thus, the pro-life view is that elective abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent
person and therefore not morally justifiable, regardless of the law. But since the law should be
consistent with morality, elective abortion ought to be regarded legally as murder. Again, this is the
basic argument against the legality of abortion. There exist people who morally disapprove of abortion
but who, for other reasons, deny that abortion should be legally proscribed. This will be explained
below.

One could also oppose the legality of abortion on nonreligious grounds, which is a strategy employed
by those who believe that their personal religious considerations have no proper place in public policy
debate. One could say, for example, that the proposition that all humans are persons and that because
a human life begins at conception so too does personhood--and the moral rights that entails. This is a
genetic view of "human life" which begins with the union of parental gametes that creates a new
individual with a distinct genetic identity, initiating the process that ends with death. Proponents of
this view recognize that there is a period of several months during which the child is biologically
dependent upon the mother to sustain its life, but they regard the obligation of a parent to protect the
life of its child as one which ought to be an uncontroversial societal norm. Opponents argue that
biologists are by no means unanimous in their agreement about when a human life begins. Other
views of the human identity place the beginning of human life at later time. For example, the
embryological view holds that individual human life begins when an embryo no longer is capable of
forming twins, approximately 12 days after conception.

Those who believe that abortion is morally permissible, and should remain legally permissible, typically
have a different view of the issue as to when a human becomes a person that deserves a right to life.
Many hold that an embryo or fetus which is incapable of surviving outside the mother's womb (a
status generally reached no sooner than 17 weeks into gestation) is not recognizable as a human life
separate from the mother's body, while others hold that human life starts with the development of a
nervous system. Those opposed to abortion at any stage counter by saying that it is arbitrary when an
embryo or fetus is to be considered a separate human life, and that future technology may make it
possible for a human life to develop entirely outside of a mother's body. Others argue that a fetus
does not have the capacity for thought, self awareness, etc. required for personhood and thus does
not have a strong right to life.

For those who believe that abortion should be legally permissible (regardless of its morality), one of
the most common arguments is based on privacy rights. Abortion rights advocates hold that a
woman's right to determine what happens with her body (including whether to carry a pregnancy to
term) is private, is not to be interfered with by outside influences, and negates all rights of her
offspring. This point was given an interesting formulation by the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson:
if one were to find oneself suddenly attached to another, adult human being, and in such a position
such that, if one were to remove oneself, that other person would die, it is by no means clear that one
would be obligated, morally or legally, to continue to be attached to that person. Abortion opponents
find this argument unconvincing since the mother would only be "temporarily" attached to another
human being- it is not as if the woman would be forced to be attached to the other indefinitely.
Moreover, even if the attachment was permanent, from a legal and moral standpoint the argument
given by Thompson is fallacious; using siamese twins as an example, for one twin to remove him or
herself from the other when the known consequence would be death for the other it is indeed
considered murder legally and morally. Also, given the logic used, the adult human being the woman
suddenly finds herself attached to would possess as much right as the woman to detach him or herself
from the woman even if the woman dies as a result. Also against this argument the objection is
frequently made that in about 97 percent of all cases (rape and incest account for about 3 percent) it
was, after all, the mother who made a choice which caused an embryo to become attached to her, and
therefore the analogy is imperfect. Others respond by modifying the analogy, arguing that women who
become pregnant unintentionally were certainly not choosing to become attached to a fetus, and thus
have a right to abortion.

Another common argument is political pragmatism. Where abortion is illegal, some women
nonetheless seek to end their pregnancies and will resort to unsafe methods that endanger their own
lives—so-called "back-alley" abortions. Since modern medical testing makes it possible to estimate
early in pregnancy whether a child might be born with severe defects, some abortion rights advocates
also argue that requiring such children to be born would be an unnecessary burden on society as well
as the parents--and might even be an immoral offense to the childen themselves. This, however,
raises another contentious moral issue of "selective" abortion, where parents might choose to
terminate a pregnancy based on desired traits of the child (such as sex) that can be determined
before birth.

Some abortion rights advocates point to global population pressures which many hold responsible for
endemic hunger, overcrowding, and environmental impacts; they believe that making abortion illegal
would result in further such pressures and would exacerbate these problems. They also sometimes
refer to the difficulties and often miseries experienced by the children and their mothers, when the
mothers are often single and impoverished. An increase of children born to such situations could result
in an increase in social ills, including increases in crime, broadening of the population base of those
living below the poverty line, and ballooning of the state welfare rolls. Abortion opponents observe
that a related rationale led China to adopt its "one child" policy, which has led not only to increased
abortions and sterilizations, but also to live baby daughters being secretly abandoned in hopes that
the next child will be a son. When the answer to social ills is to reduce the number of people, the
argument goes, other even less palatable ways of reducing existing populations may begin to look
attractive as well. Abortion opponents also point out the abortion proponents rarely suggest killing
infants and todders as a solution to hunger, overcrowding, and environmental impacts. In response
those that favor legalization of abortion point out that sex selection is possible in the United States but
no preference for either sex is seen, rather families generally choose balanced sex ratios—sometimes
using abortion to achieve this result. Moreover, many proponents of abortion believe that babies are
persons and thus infanticide would be immoral.