Richardson 1

Kaitlyn Richardson
Mrs. Rybicka
English 102
26 April 2013
Abortion: Killing an Innocent Life
There have been over 54 million abortions in the United State since Roe v. Wade
in 1973. That is 54 million abortions in forty years! That is actually quite sickening.
Fifty-four million babies have been killed in forty years just by abortion alone. This is
wrong and it needs to stop. Most people say abortion is a personal choice and that the
mother can choose what is best for her. But, no one should have the choice of killing an
innocent human being. More than just personal choice or opinion should be taken into
account like, what defines life, what are the rights of the unborn baby, and other options
besides abortion.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Most of the time people get an
abortion because they have unprotected sex with their partner and ended up getting
pregnant when they were not ready for a baby. But how can someone justify killing a
baby just because they were not ready? Well, most people say they have the right to
choose what is best for them. And this applies to all areas of life. I do not know what
made people think they are the ultimate deciders of everything. Just because you have the
freedom to choose something, it does not mean you have the right to do it (Alcorn 63). In
other words, just because you can does not mean you should. People are so wrapped up in
what they think is best for them that they never stop to realize how their decision might
affect others. And in the case of abortion- how it affects the unborn baby.

Richardson 2
Abortion supporters throw this idea of choice in pro-lifers faces. They think
they are arguing against choice. But what is the choice? The choice to kill children? Pro
life is fighting against one choice- the choice to kill children- not choice in general
(Alcorn 63). Pro lifers are concerned about the mother and the baby after birth. Many
pro-choice people would say otherwise because they think it is unfair for a mother to give
birth to a baby when she cannot afford to take care of it. But, there are many
organizations that help mothers who would not be able to care for the child on their own.
All of this is free. But on the other hand abortions are not free (Alcorn 20-21). Does that
seem like they care about what happens to the mother? And they certainly do not care
about what happens to the baby because they are killing it!
How can anyone justify the killing of an innocent life? Well, in the eyes of
someone who is pro-choice, they are not taking an innocent life. They believe the unborn
embryo is not human and that is has no life. So, therefore, abortion is not taking an
innocent life. But as you will see later, science begs to differ. The unborn baby is alive
and well, and performing the abortion is killing a living and breathing child. And anyone
who gets an abortion is committing a murder. Murder is murder. No one would ever think
it is morally correct to kill a child, so why is it okay to kill the unborn baby? (Klusendorf
24) A common claim is that babies are expensive, that is why they got an abortion. But
older kids are just as expensive. So is it okay to kill them when things get tough? (Alcorn
22) Of course the answer is no. The ultimate question is why is murder okay in one
situation but not in another? Even people who think abortion is immoral still think it
should be legal, but people think abuse is immoral and the do not think it should be legal
(Alcorn 22). There is always a double standard. Abortion is morally wrong and it is

Richardson 3
murder, but yet some still think it is okay. But it all really boils down to whether or not
the unborn has life and is a human.
Before we can determine if the unborn embryo is a human and has life, we need
to define what it is. From the earliest stages of development, the unborn are living human
beings. A zygote which is the cell from the joining of sperm and egg during sexual
reproduction, is the beginning of a new human being (Klusendorf 28). Life begins at
conception and it continues all the way through adulthood (Alcorn 26). After fertilization
has taken place a new life has formed and termination of the pregnancy would end a life
(Alcorn 27). About forty-two days after fertilization, the baby has a heartbeat and
brainwaves. When a person no longer has a heartbeat they are dead, and since every
abortion stops a heartbeat and brainwaves it is also stopping a life. At 45 days the embryo
weighs only 1/30 ounce and has all of it organs. By nine weeks the baby can respond to
stimuli and feel pain; and by 12 weeks the baby has formed hands, fingers, fingernail; it
is swallowing, turning and moving, and making facial expressions. This all happens
within the first three months of the babys life. The six months after that the baby is not
developing anything new, but merely growing (Alcorn 29-30). The baby is growing and
where there is growth there is life (Alcorn 28). But people still think they can kill the
embryo because it is not human. Greg Koukl said, Living things do not become
entirely different creatures in the process of changing their form (Klusendorf 36). What
he is basically saying is the embryo did not start out as something other than a human and
then change into a human in the process of developing and growing. Now that seems like
a pretty basic statement, yet abortionists argue that the embryo is not a human. What do
they think it is, an alien? That is just absurd to say it is not a human. It has life because

Richardson 4
anything that grows has life. But some people try to make it seem like the embryo is only
a potential life. But as Greg Koukl points out, you either have the potential to create a life
or to create a life with potential. You are either creating life or not (Creating a Potential
Life).
A common abortionists claim is that the embryo is just a mast of cells. Now lets
look at how logical that is. Cells work together with one goal and that is growth of the
entity it is a part of. Cells are a part of that thing- the key word being A PART. The
embryo is a complete organism that is fully programed and ready to start developing
itself into a mature human being. Single cells work together to ensure the survival of the
larger organism it is a part of. While embryos can mature and develop on their own, cells
of the body cannot. They can grow and mature and maintain the balance of all the organ
systems, which is something masts of cells cannot do (Klusendorf 37-40). This seems
like clear evidence that human life is occurring in the embryo.
Although we may not be able to tell the exact point during conception when the
zygote comes to be does not mean it is not a human being. Sure it is an immature human
being, but it is still nonetheless a human. Scott Klusendorf explains four differences
between the unborn embryo and a newborn. First is size. Yeah the unborn is smaller, but
does that mean that a young child is less of a human than an adult? What about level of
development? A fetus is definitely less developed than a newborn, but does that mean a
little girl is less of a human than a teenager because she is less developed? Next is
environment. Does location make you more of a human? How can the eight-inch journey
down the birth canal change the fact that a fetus is not human but when it is born it is?
And lastly, we have degree of dependency. Because a fetus is not capable of living

Richardson 5
without his mother does that make him less of a human just because he is more
dependent? If so than that means people who depend on medication is less of a human
(Klusendorf 28-29).
So when interpreting whether the fetus is a human, it all really comes down to
what makes a human valuable. We already discussed the scientific aspect, now it is time
to dig a little deeper. Dr. John Swomley says that value rests in your self-awareness. So
according to his reasoning, since fetuses do not have the necessary brain development to
exercise self-awareness, it does not have value and is therefore okay to abort. But
something Swomely did not think closely about is that newborns are the same way until
several months after birth. So can we therefore justify the killing of infants because they
are not self- aware? But of course people do not condone killing infants, but where can
we draw the line? What makes it okay to kill a non-self-aware fetus but not a non-selfaware infant? (Klusendorf 141). Bonnin said that the fetus did not have value or rights
because it was not yet a human. He also said the value of the fetus was based on whether
or not the parents wanted the baby (Lopez 515). Our value should not come from others.
You are not valuable just because someone says you are. Our value comes from our
human nature. Being human gives us value (Klusendorf 60-62).
Now that we have established that the fetus is indeed a living, breathing,
developing human with values and rights just like any other human, it is time to talk
about one of the most common pro-choice claims. People constantly say, It is the
womans body, she can do what she wants. But the unborn baby is its own being living
inside of the mother, not part of the mother. If the baby was a part of her body then the
mother would have two sets of arms, two sets of eyes, double organ systems, and if it was

Richardson 6
a boy she would have to have male organs too. We all know that it is physically
impossible for a woman to have male parts, so therefore he is not part of her body
(Alcorn 37-38). The baby has its own genetic code that is completely different from his
mothers and that is where his individual identity comes from. Having your own DNA
makes you your own person, not part of your mothers body (Alcorn 38). Being inside
something isnt the same as being part of something (Alcorn 41). The idea of women
having a right to choose is actually kind of ironic, because by killing an unborn baby girl
you are taking that baby girls rights away. If you want women to have the right to choose,
then it needs to be equal and that is including unborn baby girls (Alcorn 60). Pro- choice
people will also argue that if you take the choice away from the women it will force them
to get illegal and unsafe abortions (Pickert). Why would some one kill just because they
wanted to choose for themselves? It is especially astonishing since the choice is not even
theirs to make!
Sometimes it seems like the rights of the baby are just ignored in general. The
baby is a human and all humans are entitled to human rights (Rossi 33). And one of those
rights is protection from being unjustly harmed from anyone including the mother.
Saying a baby does not have rights is kind of the same as slavery. People said blacks were
not human and did not have rights and therefore owned slaves. But just because they had
a choice to own slaves did not make it right (Abortion and Human Rights). By ignoring
the babys rights, the mother is just looking for, what she thinks, is any easy way out. She
is being selfish. She is not harming herself, just her baby. But people do not think of the
consequences for their actions. An innocent human being will never get to experience life
because the mother does not want to raise it. A common phrase is, If you dont trust me

Richardson 7
with a choice, how are you going to trust me with a child. By saying this, the mother is
trying to equate that if she is not capable of making her own decisions, i.e. abortion, then
how will she be capable of taking care of her child. This is her justification for choosing
abortion. But what she is really saying is that if you cannot trust me to kill my child, then
how can you trust me to take care of it. Now that makes her claim foolish and crazy. By
making these claims, she is forgetting one thing- the victim. The victim (or the baby) has
a right to choose to. After all it is his life, his body (Alcorn 63-64). I mean if you had the
choice to choose between life and death, you would choose life. So dont you think that is
what the baby would choose. It is not the babys fault the mother got pregnant, so why
should he be punished? Also, think about this, what if your mother aborted you? You
would not be here. A mother having an abortion is robbing the innocent child of
something we experience everyday, and that is life.
No matter how the child is conceived or in what conditions it is being brought
into this world, it still has a right to live. Like in the instance of teen pregnancy. The
teenagers cannot afford the baby and they may even be embarrassed, but regardless that
does not mean you can kill an unborn baby. Getting pregnant is not wrong, not matter
how if occurred (married or not), so no one should look down on a girl and act like she is
a horrible person and therefore pressuring her into getting an abortion. There are families
out there that cannot have children so the best solution would be adoption. Again it is not
the babys fault it was conceived outside of marriage; so do not punish it by killing it.
A big topic that always comes up is rape. Surely abortion is condonable then,
right? Wrong. Contrary to popular belief, babies who are conceived by rape have the
exact same rights as all other babies. It is not the babys fault that its father is not a good

Richardson 8
person. And killing the baby will not make the situation less traumatic for the mother. It
will be harder for the mother knowing her child died to relieve her of her pain. Making
another victim by killing the baby will not undo what was done to the first victim (the
mother). Why wrong someone just because you were wronged? (Alcorn 79-82).
Another topic that is usually brought up in an abortion debate is what about when
the mothers life is in danger? Would it be okay to abort the baby to save the mothers
life? If the mother is ill and performing some kind of surgery will save her, then she
should obviously have it done. In some cases the baby will not survive. But she is not
purposely killing her child; its death is a sad consequence for her health. The intent is not
to kill but to save. It is unfortunate that they both cannot be saved, but it is better to save
one then none, because if the mother is not saved they baby will most likely die too
(Alcorn 31). So it is not exactly aborting the baby it is just the saving of the mother in a
life-threatening situation.
According to science life starts at conception. The fetus continues to grow, and
since it grows it has life. That life resides in his mother as its own being with its own
DNA, but it is not part of her. Since he is not part of her it is not her choice as to whether
the baby should die or not. The baby has rights too and should not be punished for
something it had absolutely no control over. Abortion is a serious thing in our world.
According to Planned Parenting, an abortion occurs every second. This is murder, and it
is happening all too frequently, and it needs to stop. We need to stand together and give a
voice to those who cannot speak for themselves, because if we do not, no one will.

Richardson 9
Works Cited
Alcorn, Randy. Why Pro-life? Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, Inc, 2004. 14120. Print.
Klusendorf, Scott. The Case for Life. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009. 1-243. Print.
Koukl, Gregory. "Abortion and Human Rights." Stand to Reason. N.p. 1992. Web. 15
Mar. 2013.
Koukl, Gregory. "Creating a potential life?" Stand to Reason. N.p. 1999. Web. 15 Mar.
2013.
Pickert, Kate. "What Choice?" TIme (2013): 40-46. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26
Apr. 2013.
Rossi, Marco Rosalie. "Nonreligious And Pro-Life." Humanist 72.5 (2012): 32-35.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.
Lopez, Raquel. "Perspectives on Abortion: Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, and What Lies in
between." European Journal of Social Science 27.2-4 (2012): 511-17. Web. 26
Apr. 2013.