Emmanuel Teney said: “Murder is not the crime of criminals; but that of law-abiding citizens.”
Murder is defined as: “The killing of one human being by another…to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.” If we take that definition—the standard definition—of murder, and break it down, what do we get? We get questions. What defines “killing,” and what defines “life?” There are many kinds of killing, but murder is the willful and active execution of a human being by another human being because they feel that the victim no longer has the right to live. It is an active decision.
Defining “life” is a bit trickier. A standard definition of “life” is: “The sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.” So what defines human beings as “living” is our transformation, sentient nature, and our adaptation. As organic, sentient objects, we move from one state to another; adapting to changes in our environment. We grow and develop; learning as we age.
Our growth and development is, of course, determined by our DNA; which we receive upon conception. It therefore stands to reason that once we receive the instructional material needed to begin our adaptation and development—otherwise known as growth—we should be considered as “living.”
With that established; that we are—by definition—”living” following conception; what is abortion? Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy. But what does that really mean? Ending a pregnancy means terminating the previously defined “life,” often by barbarous and inhumane means. If the act of abortion is indeed the ending of a life—as popularly defined—abortion is murder; homicide. That is the logical conclusion, given the facts presented.
There are those who say that unless the fetus can survive on its own, outside the mother, it is not human, and therefore terminating it is not murder. There are also those who say that as long as the fetus hasn’t developed nerves to feel pain, abortion is a viable option. To those people, I would ask several questions:
1. There are people alive today who cannot survive without the attentive care of others; such as the elderly, the infirm, and the mentally challenged. As they cannot survive on their own, is it appropriate to kill them? Are they not human? Can we eliminate them without remorse?
2. Why does the ability to “survive” on its own determine the viability of an organism? Who set that benchmark?
3. What does the ability to feel pain determine? Does the inability to feel your arm getting clamped off by a surgical tool mean that you are not a viable human being? And if so, why?
There are no morally suitable answers to these questions, because they are not questions set within moral bounds. These are beliefs created by people who don’t want to feel pain themselves; people who need excuses that sound medically rational. They are not. They are specious. These benchmarks are created to make pro-abortion advocates feel better about what they are advocating; which is, without question, murder.
Now ask yourself this: Why do I believe what I believe? Do I believe in the truth, or do I instead seek self-comfort? Today, I ask you to take the side of the truth. Abortion is murder. That is the truth.