Abortion; it’s a matter of life & death. It should be seen to be a simple topic. In fact, it should be entirely easy to see that human life is valuable, no matter what stage it’s in. Yet somehow, the topic of abortion becomes controversial. Why? Because some people don’t see that the unborn as human life. Some people place the so-called ‘choice’ of the mother-to-be above that of the life of the unborn child. And see that’s what the abortion debate truly boils down to. It’s a simple view. Those who support abortion do not see all human life as equal. If, however, you see all human life as truly equal, then you won’t support the abortion of the child. Because quite simply, you know that unborn child has just as much right to life as its mother, & as anyone living on this planet. Let’s delve a little deeper into this debate.

When it comes to the abortion debate, there’s two sides: pro-life & pro-choice. Yet when you get to the root of it, you begin to see that pro-choice simply means pro-abortion. Pro-lifers do not tolerate abortion. Pro-choicers think it should be down to the woman with child, & that it should be her choice as to whether or not she has the baby, thus being in favour of abortion if the woman so chooses. It’s important to note that it is a baby that is living inside of the pregnant woman. Often, pro-choicers will refer to it as a ‘fetus’ or a ‘clump of cells’ or any other term which aims to make this life seem small & insignificant, with the goal to make it appear as if it isn’t even a life. Yet it is. In fact, it’s scientific fact that life begins at conception. Do pro-choicers accept the science on this? Typically, they don’t. Yet life does indeed begin when the baby is conceived. From there on, the fertilized egg will grow, it will begin to form a head, body, arms, legs, hands, feet, fingers, toes, a brain, a heart, & the heart will begin to beat. Inevitably, it will form the necessary means to feel pain. In fact, while we’re here, let’s talk about that.

Pain; it’s something we all feel at some point throughout our lives. Of course, we do everything we can to avoid it, because we don’t want to feel it. But we do, in various forms. Be it physical or emotional, we feel pain, & it hurts. Some types of pain hurt more than others. Inevitable, when we feel pain, we do what we can to treat it, to rid ourselves of it, or at the very least lessen it. We are lucky that we have the ability to do so, because it would most certainly be hellish to be in constant pain without being able to do something about it. We as humans are also prone to fear. We all have our various fears, yet we can do what we need to avoid them. We can prevent them from taking hold over us. We can take ourselves out of certain situations that create fear within us. We have the capability to do that. We have the capability to escape our fears. Now I want you to imagine yourself in a situation in which you would be extremely scared. Now you might usually be able to get out of such a situation, however, in this case, you’re trapped there. You have no way out, there is no escape. You know that you’re about to feel excruciating pain, & that, ultimately, it will result in your untimely death. And there is nothing you can do about it. Not a thing. All you can do is sit there & take it as it comes. That scenario right there; that is the reality that millions of unborn babies face every single year. That is abortion.

Amongst the pro-choice side, you’d likely find that most do not think late-term abortion should be an option, unless of course it is medically necessary. Most would also say that late-term abortions only occur when medically necessary. Unfortunately, that’s incorrect. The vast majority of late-term abortions actually occur for no good reason at all. And on top of that, of all abortions, around 95% are completed at the behest of the woman with child simply because it will inconvenience her. Take a moment to think about that. All these women are denying their children a life, they are killing their children, simply because it would be an inconvenience to what they want to do. What this shows is that these women place their own lives above those of their children, they think their lives are more valuable. There’s no equality of life in their minds. It’s purely selfish. There’s no other way of saying it. These women are acting selfishly in aborting their children for their own benefit. It shouldn’t be allowed to occur.

By the same token abortion should not occur as a result of the unborn child having a developmental disorder such as Down Syndrome or the like. These babies are just as viable & just as human as anyone else. Sure, they might have some issues with development, however, they deserve just as much as anyone else to live their life. There is no valid reason to abort a baby in this circumstance.

Abortion shouldn’t be treated as some form of contraception. It isn’t contraception. Contraception is used in the prevention of pregnancy. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Many women who have abortions seem to abuse it as a late contraceptive method. That’s not what it is. While we’re on this, if you don’t want to fall pregnant, then there is one simple thing you can do: practice abstinence. Many pro-choicers laugh at that suggestion, or they’ll say it’s a ridiculous idea. The fact is, abstinence is 100% effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy. It is simply impossible to fall pregnant if you’re abstinent. You can then have a child when you’re ready. It’s quite simple really. There’s really no excuse for being irresponsible & falling pregnant as a result.

Now those on the pro-choice side would likely hit back here & bring up the rare cases of rape & incest. Let me make this clear: pregnancies resulting from rape & incest are extremely rare. Cases of abortion as a resultant of rape make up around 1% of all abortions, with incest cases being at 0.5%. It’s not right to justify all other abortions by using these extremely rare causes of unwanted pregnancy & abortions.

On the same point, within the abortion debate, there is often talk of rape exceptions. Things are going to get controversial here. Now often I try to remain objective when writing these articles, however for this point, that’s going to change. I personally do not believe in rape exceptions. Let me make this clear: I’m not attempting to detract from what women who fall pregnant as a result of rape have been put through. These vile criminal acts are completely disgusting & have no place in this world. All those who perpetrate such acts should face the full extent of the law. What I’m saying is that, in the rare case that the victim of a rape falls pregnant as a result, the unborn child should not have to pay for the sins of its father. Allow me to explain further.

In order for you to understand this ‘controversial’ view, I want you to take a moment & think. Think of your best friend, the one you cherish the most, the one who makes your life so much better, the one who you might not be able to live without. Now imagine that best friend was conceived in rape. Imagine that, because that best friend was conceived in rape, he/she was aborted, & never entered your life. Now I pose a few questions to you: Do you truly believe that that best friend, who’s likely a shining light in your life, deserves to die because of how they were conceived? That friend didn’t do anything wrong, did they? Why should they have to pay for the crimes their father committed?

Often, pro-choicers will also claim that ‘abortion is healthcare.’ Healthcare is defined as ‘efforts made to maintain or restore physical, mental, or emotional well-being especially by trained and licensed professionals’. Healthcare is the nurturing of a human life. Healthcare does not pertain to damaging a human life in any way. Abortion results in the taking of a human life. That isn’t healthcare. In the case of an unborn baby, healthcare would pertain to ensuring it is growing healthily, that nothing is done to cause harm to it, & that it is delivered when required. Pro-choice women also often claim that they have a right to abortion. Abortion is not strictly a right. Even in the United States, it has only been justified under the Fourth Amendment protection of privacy. It is not a Constitutional right. Women do not have a right to choose. It simply does not exist. When such ‘rights’ are discussed however in creating abortion legislation, such Bills are often brought forward under the guise of a ‘Reproductive Health’ Bill. They are anything but.

Reproductive health would bring with it the connotations of reproduction, that is, actually having a baby, & the health of the baby during the time in which it is developing pre-birth. It would not pertain to aborting a baby. Yet in recent years, Bills have been brought forward in many states in Australia, with NSW being the last state remaining in which abortion has not been decriminalized, & thus being the final frontier for life in Australia. However, in recent weeks, a Bill brought forward by Independent MP Alex Greenwich which would decriminalize abortion & allow abortions up to 22 weeks, was pushed through quickly in the Lower House, whereby the Premier Gladys Berejiklian did not follow regular process, in which such a Bill, coming from a private member, would typically be given to a Committee first before being brought into the Parliament for debate & voting. The Bill passed the Lower House 59-31, with at least two-thirds of the Liberal Party voting against it, along with a smattering of Labor & Independent MPs. Berejiklian & her deputy John Barilaro refused to speak on the Bill, then voted down Amendments & voted in favour of the Bill itself. This has of course angered Liberal MPs. Berejiklian allowed a ‘conscience vote’, then sat on the other side, voting with Labor, Greens & Independents, as well as most of the Nationals & a few Libs. This isn’t a good look for the Premier. The way in which she has gone about this has rightly resulted in anger & a sense of betrayal from the Party faithful, especially from those who voted to keep her in power. What should also be noted is that this was a conscience vote. However, anyone with a conscience would have voted to protect life, rather than take it.

The Bill has now gone to an Upper House Committee, which is conducting a series of interviews with a number of individuals including the Sydney Catholic Archbishop Anthony Fisher, who has been quite vocal in his own dismay toward this Bill. This Bill is not a reproductive health Bill. It is an abortion Bill. What is concerning about this Bill is that, when an Amendment was put forward by Liberal MP Tanya Davies to ensure that sex-selection abortions were outlawed, it was voted down. The Premier was one of those who voted against this Amendment. Even though all MPs condemned it, it was still voted down. Those MPs who voted against it may have condemned it, yet what is their position if they are voting against such an Amendment? Such a vote would be considered to be a vote in support of sex-selection abortion, something which is extremely deplorable. Whilst it has been agreed that there will be a report completed over the next twelve months which will indicate whether there is an occurrence of sex-selection abortions within NSW, this is clearly not enough, considering that if such abortions do occur the unborn babies that have lost their lives as a result of such selfish reasons cannot be brought back from the dead. In addition to this, the Bill would likely allow for late-term abortions, practically legalizing murder. The Bill makes it legal for abortions up to 22 weeks of gestation. There have been many cases in which babies have been born prematurely at 22 weeks who have survived & are living without any defect or deficiency. There have even been cases of babies born at 21 weeks who have survived & thrived. These babies are able to survive. Yet politicians are supporting legislation which would effectively result in their legal murder. Let me put it this way: If a man killed a baby that had just been born, it would be considered murder & he would likely go to prison for 20 years or more. Yet an abortionist can kill a baby before it is scheduled to be born, & it is considered to be perfectly fine. Does that really make sense?

There is only really one other state’s legislation we can compare this Bill to in Australia. That is Victoria. Victoria passed similar laws in 2008, whereby it was thought this would discourage late-term abortions. However, late-term abortions have increased in number. There has even been a case in which an unborn baby was aborted at 37 weeks. There’s really no question about it, that’s murder. What’s even more disturbing is that there has been a significantly large number of cases in which babies have been born alive & left to die. That’s murder. This is what NSW has almost legislated. This is what Queensland legislated just last year. When Queensland politicians passed their Bill, they celebrated it, lighting up their major bridge in purple, celebrating like it was New Year’s. When NSW Lower House politicians passed their Bill last week, there were cheers & applause, & pictures were taken showing smiles & joy on the faces of some politicians & activists. Again, this is extremely disturbing. These people are celebrating death. And if this Bill does pass, they will be complicit in the deaths to come. It’s also concerning that the Health Minister, Brad Hazzard, would defend such a Bill. He’s the Health Minister. That should entail being concerned with the health of the unborn. Hazzard should not be Health Minister if he is willfully supporting & defending a Bill which would legislate the killing of the next generation.

Adverse to what is occurring in Australia, over in the United States, several States have, one by one, pushed through restrictions &/or bans on abortion, demonstrating a turning tide in the US, whereby life is being respected as opposed to being willfully destroyed. Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, & Ohio have all passed restrictive abortion bans. Alabama pass the most restrictive laws, whereby abortions are banned in almost all circumstances, including rape & incest, with the exception of cases in which there is a serious risk to a woman’s health. Tennessee has joined these states just a few days ago, whereby legislation is being debated & will likely be passed in order to ban abortions “when a viable pregnancy is presumed to exist or has been confirmed”. It is promising to see these bans being put in place, & to see more & more States doing the same despite court challenges. It hasn’t stopped others from trying to legislate abortion to birth & even post-birth abortion, two abhorrent ideas that have been spoken about & advocated for particularly in New York. However, ultimately, if enough States banned abortion, there could be enough ground for a legitimate challenge to the Roe v Wade ruling, put in place by the Supreme Court, so as to overturn this ruling & ban abortion nationwide.

Off legislation now & onto a few other points. First, the pro-choice side tend to also be those who advocate for children in detention as a result of illegal immigration. Quick point on that, if you want to immigrate somewhere, you should go about doing it legally. True asylum seekers do not pick a country halfway around the world that they like, rather they go to the nearest country in which they can seek asylum. If you want to immigrate, however go about doing it illegally, you should expect to face consequences as a result. Back to the main point here, pro-choicers typically also advocate for children in detention. They seem to care so much about their lives yet have little to no care for the lives of the unborn. It’s hypocritical, & puts their double standards on full display.

Within the abortion debate, the pro-choice side also continue to bring up ‘bodily autonomy’. Pro-choicers often use the phrase ‘my body my choice’ or ‘her body her choice’. They will say that others, particularly men, shouldn’t be telling women what to do with their bodies. Here’s what’s wrong with that. It’s not your body. Sure, you have autonomy over your own body, but that autonomy is limited to your own body. The body of the unborn baby is not your body. It is a separate body, a body of its own. Unless of course you have two heads, four arms & legs, twenty fingers & toes, two hearts & two brains, which I highly doubt you would. If you do, that’s a medical issue that likely needs to be explored further. I doubt you’d find anyone who had such an issue however. If these people care so much about bodily autonomy, you’d think they would respect the bodily autonomy of the unborn child. Again, this simply exposes the double standards of these people. By the same token, the pro-choice side have argued that the unborn are reliant on the women who they are living inside, & thus cannot make their own decisions/choices, thereby the woman should be allowed to make a choice on their behalf. However, a valid point was made by Archbishop Fisher in conversation with 2GB radio host Alan Jones on Monday when the Archbishop made it clear that children up to three years of age cannot make their own choices. Would that mean that we should be able to abort a child that has already been born? Or one which has lived for say a year or two? Of course not. This simply demonstrates that this line of thinking of pro-choice individuals on choice is completely flawed.

Women who are pro-choice, or pro-abortion, also seem to think that the views of males on the matter of abortion are completely irrelevant. Oftentimes you’ll see that when a male tries to express their views, if they are pro-life, or anti-abortion, they are brushed away by the pro-choice side. The pro-choice side will often say of these men that their opinion doesn’t matter because they’ve never been pregnant, they cannot get pregnant, or because they don’t have a uterus. However, if you happen to be a male who is on the side of these pro-abortion individuals, you face no such criticism. The issue with this is that abortion is just as much a matter for men as it is for women. After all, it takes both a male & a female to make a baby. Men should be able to express their views on the matter of abortion freely, no matter what side of the debate they are on. However, there are a group of men who may only be expressing a certain view for their own personal benefit. These are male feminists. Male feminists, who typically side with pro-choice women on this matter, are pro-choice as it gives them a means of engaging with women without consequence. If they get a woman pregnant, the woman can go get an abortion & everything carries on as usual. They’re in it, for the most part, for selfish reasons. To the main point here however, the views of men on abortion should not be swept aside as if they carry no value, simply because the man isn’t a woman.

By the same token, pro-life views in general should not be subject to censorship. Often this side of the debate is censored in some way, so that the reach of such views is limited, whilst pro-choice views are spread far & wide, censorship free. The most recent examples of this bias against pro-life views are the limiting of the distribution of pro-life films Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer, which tells the story of abortionist Kermit Gosnell & the vile things he was doing in his abortion clinics over a number of decades, & Unplanned, the story of Abby Johnson, & her journey from the youngest Planned Parenthood clinic director to one of the most prominent pro-life activists in America, after seeing just what occurred in the carrying out of an abortion. Both these films faced extreme difficulties in being circulated, which resulted in the films only being shown in a number of select theatres across the US. Gosnell was only shown in the US. Unplanned has faced even more hurdles as there are attempts made to get the film out across a number of countries worldwide, including Australia. It faced protest & censorship when it was to be released in Canada, & after being stalled multiple times, was finally released in select theatres. It’s extremely shameful that such films would face such difficulties in being released & distributed, & brings to light the issue of censorship when it comes to showing the truth. It shouldn’t matter if it is pro-life or not. The films are truthful, & so should be shown in order to educate people above all else on what abortion truly is. It has become more & more apparent that those who support abortion do not want the truth to be shown, as it will likely destroy their own cause.

One final point. When it comes to the abortion debate, if you’re a Catholic/Christian, your views are often attributed to your religious standing. The pro-choice side will regularly claim that you’re only pro-life because of your religion. There’s an important point to be made here. Abortion is not a religious issue. It’s a moral issue. Sure at some times our views may be affected somewhat by our religious values, however it really comes down to our moral standings, our views on what is right, & what is wrong. Within the moral spectrum, abortion falls clearly into the morally wrong section. If you have good morals, you’ll see that. Abortion goes against good morals. That much is clear. Morals are at the root of religious beliefs. The abortion debate is not one of religion at heart. It is one of moral standings.

Abortion. When it comes down to it, it’s disrespectful of human life. And at the heart of the debate lies one central question. I’ll put it to you in an analogy. You have a criminal, one who has committed unspeakable evils, & a charity worker who has dedicated their life to helping others. Is the life of each of these individuals equal to the other? Now some, mostly those on the pro-choice side, would say there is no equality that exists between the lives of these two individuals. They would likely argue that the life of the criminal is of significantly less value than the charity worker. This is incorrect. Because there is a correct answer here. The life of the criminal & the life of the charity worker are equal. The reason for this is quite simple. All human life is equal. Yes, these two individuals have taken very different paths in their lives & made significantly different decisions. However, whilst these choices may change the quality of their life, including how they are viewed by others, it does not change its value. That is what is crucial to this debate. In the forefront, it’s a debate on abortion. Deeper down, it’s a debate on morals. But at its core, this is a debate on the value of a human life. So I’ll leave you with a question to consider: do you believe all human life is equal?

JJ