When we have the sense of hearing about the word abortion, suddenly inhuman act strikes our mind. To me, this is an issue which is more than a simple question of women controlling their own lives and bodies. It is a matter of life and death for an innocent human being.

Right away, some will say that abortion is not a matter of life and death, arguing that a fetus is not a "person", or a "human being". Yet, medical research proves that the fetus is a living organism from the moment of conception. Though it may be argued that this living organism is not a person, it seems that it can be nothing other than a human being. I realize that it may be difficult to think of a three-week old fetus as a human with rights. The way I think to best explain this is to start by going back to the sperm and the egg.

A sperm has 23 chromosomes and no matter what, even though it is alive and can fertilize an egg it can never make another sperm. An egg also has 23 chromosomes and it can never make another egg. So we have eggs and sperm that cannot reproduce. A solitary egg or a solitary sperm does not have the complete genetic code for a separate human being. The ovum and the sperm are each a product of another's body: unlike the fertilized egg, neither is an independent entity. Neither one is complete. Like cells in someone's hair or fingernails, an egg or sperm does not have the capacity to become other than what it already is. Both are essentially dead-ends, destined to remain what they are until they die in a matter of days. This negates one common argument - that the unborn isn't human, or else every time a man ejaculated, or a woman menstruated, an "unborn" dies. Obviously this is ridiculous - a sperm without an egg and an egg without a sperm does NOT constitute human life.

The baby's blood supply is also completely separate from the mother's. If they are not separate bodies, how could a mother and child have different blood types? If a child's and mother's blood mix, it can be fatal for the child if the Rh factors are different. There is a shot to prevent this, but if there is not, and the blood of different Rh factors mix, the baby can die. Now, I cannot think of any doctor that would kill a newborn baby the moment that it was born. My question is now; can that baby be killed a minute before it is born, or a minute before that, or a minute before that? You see what I'm getting at. At what minute can one consider life to be worthless and at the next minute that life to be precious?

Even most medical texts and pro-choice doctors agree with pro-choice geneticist Ashley Montagu, who has written: "The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but at conception. The beginning of human life is not a religious, moral, or philosophical issue; it is a scientific and biological one. From the time those 23 chromosomes become 46 onward; the unborn is a living, developing individual with a unique genetic makeup.

What surprised me most were statements from abortionists themselves who seemed to know that they were destroying life, a human life. For instance:

R Sapkota(name changed), M.D., who runs an abortion clinic, Said: "We know it is killing, but the country permit killing under certain circumstances."

S. Budathoki( name changed), M.D.,: "There is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before one's eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current."

Abortionist at a renowned hospital, as quoted by psychologist, In Necessity and Sorrow: "Even now I feel a little peculiar about it, because as a physician I'm trained to conserve life and here I am destroying life."

:"Women enter abortion clinics to kill their fetuses. It is a form of killing. You're ending a life."
I hope to have at least shown that the unborn is a human individual. It is also interesting that this individual, who can be denied life, has other rights. An unborn baby can be injured in an accident and at a later date, after being born, can sue the person who has injured him; a fetus can inherit an estate and take precedence over a person who is already born as soon as that fetus himself is born. The problem I have with abortion is: why should we deny individual right to live? At what point is the unborn worthy to live? I realize that there are other difficult questions regarding abortion, and I will address a few of them.

Some believe that even though there may be life, or potential life, or however one wants to refer to the fetus, that by denying a woman the right to an abortion is denying her control of her body. Being a woman myself, I am obviously against people trying to control women or their bodies. But the fetus is a completely separate life from the woman. It has a completely different blood type and genetic code; it is not just part of the mother's body. It is temporarily residing there, and birth is just the change of residence from an already living, active person. Just because the unborn is dependent on the mother for nine months, does that give anyone the right to choose to end its life? Being dependent on others should not deprive a helpless human being the fundamental right to live, as we do not base humanness on whether another person is around to take care of that life. Trying to justify abortion by arguing that the unborn does not have this right is a form of discrimination based on age and the fact that they cannot speak for themselves.

There is also an issue about child abuse, that unwanted children will be unloved and abused. There are two tough questions here. First, what does "unwanted" mean? If the mother does not want the child, there are thousands of childless couples who certainly would want that child. Also, someone's right to live should not be based on how much one individual wants them. Do we dispose of born children who are abandoned and obviously not wanted?

There are also countless programs across the country that can provide counseling, housing, medical care, job training and other services for anyone with an unplanned pregnancy who would want to keep their child. Many loving couples are also seeking to adopt children - in fact, there are many more parents waiting to adopt children of all types - white, black, handicapped or not - than there are available children.

People may still want to argue that child abuse could have gone down even more if abortion had been legalized. Yet I want the flip side of this argument to be equally considered. Consider the likely possibility that legalized abortion contributes to the atmosphere of disregard for life and the resentment of children that leads to child abuse.

It should also be remembered that a death occurs every time an abortion is performed--the death of an unborn child. Women have control over choosing an illegal abortion that they know could be harmful. The unborn has absolutely no control when the mother chooses to abort. In addition, abortion is a surgical procedure, and even though it is legal, it still puts many women at risk. Many women suffer post-abortion complications, such as severe muscle damage and damage to the uterine wall, which can lead to scarring, future miscarriages, entopic pregnancies, and other future medical problems.
Many people who I've talked to say, "Well, abortion is acceptable because it's done before the fetus is viable." First, viability is not something which should be used to determine whether someone is "human enough" to have the right to live, since viability is based on medical science. Medical science does not determine when someone becomes human. Ten years ago, a 25 week-old fetus could not survive outside the womb. Now it can. Maybe in ten years, a 15 week old fetus will be able to be sustained outside the womb. The point of viability constantly changes because it is based on medical technology, not the fetus itself. What if one hospital had the technology to keep a 20 week old fetus alive but another hospital only had the technology to keep a 28 week old fetus alive? Is the fetus "human" and worthy of life in one hospital but not in another?

There is no easy answer to this situation, and I do not think unwanted pregnancies are something to be taken lightly. However, I feel that the medical community should emphasize finding safe and effective birth control that would eliminate the need for abortion. That would be the easiest solution. But before effective birth control is found, before society changes its attitude toward pregnancy, and makes it more acceptable for women or young girls to be pregnant, the answer to this societal problem is not to kill the innocent.