By Nathaniel Zebrowski and Porsha Reed
Thirty-four years ago on this day, the Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade to legalize abortion throught the nation. Today 3,700 abortions will be performed in America, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a sexual and reproductive research non-profit. Translated, that's 46 percent of Northwestern undergraduates in one day.
When the Supreme Court legalized abortion, it was unfathomable that abortions would increase. But according to Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortion doctor and founder of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the number has increased by 1,500 percent. To us, the extensive practice of abortion presents a question of civil rights: Do we ignore the unborn child's right to life?
Once born, a child has the right to life. Why do the 25 percent aborted not have the same right? Scientifically speaking, an unborn child is not that much different from anyone else. Consider the following characteristics of a seven-week-old unborn child: (1) It has a beating heart, a brain differentiated into five sections, the full presence of all organ systems, a unique DNA and a working nervous system; (2) It is eight inches up the mother's birth canal; And (3) it relies on the life-support of its mother's womb to survive, much like patients rely on medical equipment. A Harvard medical study by Drs. Kandwaljeet Anand and Paul Hickey confirms that unborn children have a "well-developed" sense of pain. It is no wonder that Susan B. Anthony called abortion "child murder."
Counter-arguments concentrate on a woman's "right to choose." That avoids the issue: It fails to judge what is being chosen. Each major right achieved comes with a moral justification. For example, that law should not discriminate is true because blacks are really equal to whites, women are really equal to men, and the poor are really equal to the rich. The moral question of abortion is whether or not an unborn child really does have a right to life. The "right to life" is a combination of scientific evidence and due process protection of "life and liberty." If you reject the scientific evidence for the life of an unborn child, consider that before Roe v. Wade was decided, every biology textbook declared that life started at conception. After the decision, the textbooks were reversed without reason, according to Peter Kreeft in his book "Three Approaches to Abortion."
Even if there was a right to choice, abortion agencies rarely give women the information to make an informed one. They fail to disclose readily available ultrasounds (consider South Carolina Bill SB 84), they pay little heed to adoption agencies (Planned Parenthood clinics perform 34 abortions for every 1 adoption referral) and they deny measured health risks of abortion. These abortion agencies are more "pro-abortion" than "pro-choice."
The "right to choice," an idea emerging after Roe v. Wade, has left many undecided about the very "right to life." We believe that every unborn child deserves recognition. Our country's reliance on abortion is a great mistake we started making 34 years ago to date.
Weinberg sophomores Nathaniel Zebrowski and Porsha Reed can be reached at n-zebrowski@northwestern.edu and p-reed@northwestern.edu. They are vice president and treasurer, respectively, of Northwestern Students for Life.
Be the first to comment on this article!