Letter: No Less Human

I'm writing to you about M. Hupfel's letter to the editor, "Sad Places" [Aug. 9, 2012]. In it she avidly defends abortion and attacks the pro-life movement and specific pro-life measures such as the Life Defense Act. It is evident in reading her letter that she does not understand (or will fail to adequately acknowledge) the most basic argument against abortion. The only summary she can conjure of why pro-life advocates could possibly be pro-life is that they falsely believe that "they are just making ‘sure young women are protected'."  While the pro-life community does strive to protect young women who are getting abortions (many regret abortions afterwards, some are pressured into getting abortions, and some do not fully understand what is going on), the primary beneficiary of pro-life work is intended to be the greatest victim of an abortion: the unborn person who is killed during the operation.

Throughout Hupfel's entire letter, a reader will note that she does not once mention what an abortion actually is: the destruction (killing) of a fetus. Her letter's narrow-minded focus on women points to the fatal flaw in the entire concept of the pro-choice argument. It speaks of women, doctors, and the government, but it is forgetting the unborn child that is being destroyed. Even if she falsely claims that the fetus is not a person, why does she fail to even mention the fetus? I find it difficult to believe that someone would write a letter about an appendectomy and never once mention the appendix. Could it be because an abortion is wildly different than the removal of an appendix or any other "basic health care" procedure, as Hupfel claims an abortion to also be?

Let me take this time to explain to you the very simple argument against abortion. 1.) Once an egg and a sperm come together to form a zygote, a totally new, unique and individual human has come into existence. These brand new people have their own DNA and are on a totally separate developmental path from their mother. They are distinct individuals from their parents insofar as you and I are. This is objective biological fact. Yes, they are totally reliant on their mother for life, but this makes them no less human than a small infant or child or an incapacitated person of any age, who would also be totally reliant on others for life. 2.) It is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being. This is a point of natural law common to all civilizations and people. 3.) Abortion is the destruction of a fetus in the womb. This is a point of fact. 4.) The unborn person is innocent. They have no control over their own conception; therefore, even if their conception was against the will of their mother, they themselves are in no way responsible or guilty. 5.) Put it all together: A fetus is an innocent human being. Abortion kills that innocent human being. It is wrong to kill an innocent human being. Therefore, abortion is wrong. Period.

Some will say that even with all that being the case, it is still not the government's role to tell a woman what to do. The most basic function of government is to protect people's rights. The most basic right is life, because without life, you can have no other rights. If you believe the government should have any role at all, it is to protect its people's most basic right—their right to live.

The real issue comes from the misconceived notion of what is entailed by a woman's right to choose. A woman has a right to choose if and when she is going to have a baby. That decision, however, is made prior to the conception of the baby, when the woman chooses whether or not she is going to have sex. Even if that right is denied her (she is raped), the decision, unfortunately, has already been made. Her right being denied does not bestow upon her the authority to deny her child's rights.

As you can see, contrary to Hupfel's misguided view that claims pro-life advocates are "blinded by emotion," the pro-life agenda is based solely around sound and solid logic.

Jim Hunter