Why I Will Never Stop Defending the Unborn

The most recent abortion statistics from the CDC report a total of 926,240 abortions occurring in the United States in 2014. That’s 77,187 abortions per month, or (if you do a little more math) approximately 2,538 abortions per day. In the span of 365 days, that’s nearly one million innocents who will never take a breath, who will never take their first steps or say their first words, never attend their first day of grade school, never graduate and go to college, never fall in love or get married or have children of their own. That’s nearly one million unborn babies who, unlike their mothers, never had a choice.

These numbers alone are enough to light a fire between my temples and drive a blade through my chest. But at the same time, they ignite my desire to fight that much more adamantly than I have in years past, by being a voice for those little babies who do not yet, and will never, have one.

Before delving into a couple of the classic pro-choice talking points and tearing them both to shreds, allow me to lay out some basic abortion statistics for you.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 89-92% of all abortions in 2013 happened within the first trimester (prior to the 13th week of gestation), 7.1% occurred between 14-20 weeks’ gestation, and 1.3% occurred beyond 21 weeks’ gestation. Here’s a more detailed breakdown for those of you interested:


A tremendous amount of fetal development occurs within the first trimester, and much more in the second and third trimesters. Within the first four weeks, a primitive face forms with dark circular eyes, and a developing mouth, lower jaw, and throat. By the end of the second month, the baby’s ears, arms, legs, fingers, toes, and eyes begin to develop, and the brain, spinal cord, and other major parts of the central nervous system start to grow. All of this (plus a bunch more that I won’t get into in this article) within eight short weeks. And the following 32 weeks are just as wonderfully eventful. It breaks my heart to think that someone so innocent and pure, so defenseless, would have his or her life ripped away without a choice. Regardless of when the abortion ultimately takes place during the pregnancy, that is, in essence, what is happening every single time a woman makes this “choice.” A human life is being taken. But more on that soon, I promise.

In 2004, the Guttmacher Institute conducted an anonymous survey of 1,209 post-abortive women from nine different abortion clinics across the U.S. Of those women, 957 consented to provide the main reason for having their abortion. The most common reasons were “not ready for a child” (25%), “can’t afford a baby” (23%), “done having children” (19%), “don’t want to be a single mother” (8%), and “not mature enough to raise a child” (7%). Collectively, “threat to the mother,” “fetal health problems,” and “victim of rape” accounted for 8% of the responses, with rape being the main reason less than 0.5% of the time. Scour the Internet for a few hours, and you will find countless other surveys yielding similar percentages.

The phrase “pro-choice” has become a false-moniker in 2017. It no longer means what the progressive left continues to believe it does. Pro-choice advocates do not stand for a woman’s “right to choose.” They stand against a woman having to accept the consequences of her choices. The opposite side of pro-life in the abortion debate is anti-accountability, plain and simple.

All right, so now that I’ve probably triggered a few of you, here comes the fun part: explaining where I’m coming from while simultaneously debunking two of the most common pro-choice arguments that have been thrown my way on Twitter these past several months.

My Body/My Choice

Isn’t it strange how leftists are all about science when it comes to “climate change,” yet they decry (and completely ignore) it when it tears apart their fragile stance on abortion?

The concept that a baby is “just a part of a woman’s body” defies basic science. Anyone who has taken a biology class understands this. Abortion does not only involve the body of the mother; it also involves the body of another human being, one that is distinct from the mother and has its own unique DNA. So, the terminating of someone else’s life is not the mother’s choice, since that life does not belong to her body. That life belongs to the child’s body.

Hillary Clinton described how most liberals view being pro-choice: “[It’s] trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting the decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.” Many advocates of pro-choice make the assertions that pro-life individuals should not “push their morals onto others,” and that they should “keep laws out of my uterus,” which builds on their “my body, my choice” argument. Basically, Clinton and her pro-choice supporters believe morality cannot and should not be legislated.

As usual when it comes to liberal talking points, this entire thought trajectory is juvenile, uninformed, and unequivocally dangerous. One of the primary functions of law in the United States is to legislate and enforce morality according to Western values. It’s the reason why we aren’t allowed to steal money from a bank or beat/have sex with children or take the life of another human being. The United States government exists to protect and defend its citizens, by drawing boundaries between what is morally right and what is morally wrong.

Extrapolate a few other examples using Clinton’s words. Child abuse, for instance. Should we allow a woman to physically, mentally, or emotionally abuse her child, because we are trusting her to “make the right decision for herself and her family” and are not “entrusting the decision to anyone wearing the authority of government”?

See how utterly stupid that sounds? Why should an unborn child be treated any differently when his/her life is threatened by the mother’s choice?

Enter the pro-choice counter argument: “But the baby doesn’t have the right to use my body for nine months. I didn’t consent to pregnancy.”

Refer to those interesting statistics re: the nature of most abortions that I provided earlier. In the majority of abortion cases, the mother elected to have sex of her own free will, and the result was *SPOILER ALERT* pregnancy. I will spell this out as plainly as I can for any pro-choice individuals who may be reading this: regardless of why a woman decides to have intercourse with her husband, pregnancy is a potential result. So. If you are not ready for a child for whatever reason, or you do not want one, here is the solution. Do. Not. Have. Sex. It’s really THAT simple. THAT was your choice, pro-choicers. You already made it when you decided to spread your legs.

And before you try to use rape or incest as your rationalization here, again, refer to the statistics I provided above. Funny, isn’t it, how rarely rape and incest happen (less than 1% of the time), and yet both are used by pro-choice advocates as primary reasons to allow for the legalization of murdering unborn children?

It’s Not a Person. It’s a “Blob of Cells.”

As promised, here’s a bit more on the whole personhood dilemma.

For those of you who may not be familiar with human development, a quick crash course. At the moment of the egg’s fertilization by the sperm, a zygote is created. As I mentioned earlier, the zygote has its own unique DNA, which it obtained from the father and the mother. This basically means that the zygote has all the genetic material necessary to reach all future stages of development. At every stage, he or she is a human being. The words “zygote,” “blastocyst,” “embryo,” and “fetus,” are simply terms utilized to separate the different developmental stages. Just because we do not call it a “baby,” doesn’t mean it isn’t human. There is no point during the developmental process when “becoming human” happens. It always was, is, and will always be human. Science.

Another common supplement to the “personhood” argument is that the baby is not “alive” until it has been born. After all, how can you kill something that isn’t alive, right?

The most widely used criteria in the scientific community to determine life is something’s capacity to metabolize, adapt, respond to stimuli, grow, and reproduce. Science, therefore, dictates that the baby is “alive” the moment fertilization occurs, since a zygote, which is formed upon fertilization, possesses each of the qualities outlined above. There is no point during the pregnancy when the baby is nothing but an inanimate blob of cells. Therefore, it was, is, and will always be murder, since murder is the premediated killing of a human being. Again, science.

But…if a pro-choice advocate were desperate enough to stick to such an argument, I like to throw out this little technicality: all of us are “blobs of cells.” At our core, that is what every object on this planet is. I am a blob of cells. So are you. So is your husband or wife, your mother and father, your siblings. We are composed of cells during every stage of our development, in the womb or outside of it. Calling your unborn child “a blob of cells” does not change the fact that he or she is and will always be human, just like you.

The unborn are human, and they deserve the right to life just as much as you or I. That is why I will never stop defending them, why I will continue to be their voice in a world so reluctant to listen, and why I will never, ever apologize for it.

Facebook Comments