LETTER: ARGUMENT AGAINST ABORTION

Please forward this to Farhan Zahid the author of, “Republicans assault women’s pro-choice rights.” Although, Farhan, I am sure you have received your share of opposing views on abortion I ask that you would read this argument I received from www.carm.org. Your arguments were pretty weak in your article. What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive. Even one-celled creatures are alive. What is growing in the woman is more than a one-celled creature. The nature of the life in the woman is human. It is a product of human DNA, therefore it’s nature, and its essence is undeniably human baby. Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk and speak. They are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities. A person born without arms and legs is still a human. A person who cannot is still human. A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is still human by nature and it is wrong to murder such a person. What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, a bird, or a fish. It has human nature. If it is not human in nature, then what nature is it? If it is not human in nature, then does it have a different nature than human? If so, then from where did it get this different nature since the only sources of its nature are human egg and a human sperm? Objection: A cell in the body has human DNA and is alive and it is okay to kill it. So, it doesn’t make any difference with a fetus. Though it is true that a cell in the human body has DNA and is alive, a cell (muscle cell, skin cell, etc.) has the nature of being only what it is – not a human. In other words, a muscle cell is by nature a muscle cell. A skin cell is by nature a skin cell. But, the fertilized egg of a human is by nature that very thing which becomes a fully developed human. Its nature is different than that of a muscle or skin cell because they do not grow into humans. Therefore, they are not the same thing. A fertilized human egg has the nature of human development and it is alive. This is not so with a muscle or skin cell. To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature. Therefore, abortion is killing a life, which is human by nature. Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her? A question for those who believe in abortion and that the life in the womb is not human. Is it okay to take a fertilized egg between a man and a woman and place it in the womb of a dog? If you say no, then why, if it is not human then it doesn’t matter, right? If you say no because it will become a human then you admit that it has human nature and is alive. If it is human in nature and alive, then you do not have the right to abort it. If you say it is all right, why is okay? -Richard Tuttle via Longview Current online