Abortion is Killing – Science says so

Abortion is not a Moral Issue

Abortion is not a religious issue and it is not a moral issue. It is not a social issue, it is not a personal, or an ethical issue. It is entirely a matter of science – human biology in particular – and no amount of denial or cognitive dissonance, justification or moral arguments can help one escape from the implications of examining abortion from a scientific point of view.

Abortion is an intentionally divisive issue, used to cleave society in half rendering perpetual, circular debate. Considering the finality that biology lends to the debate, it becomes quite clear then, why biology is rarely brought up in any “pro-life/pro-choice” argument. It is yet another false paradigm where two inadequate arguments are intentionally perpetuated by the corporate-owned globalist media on both sides, ensuring a real solution or consensus is never reached. Abortion then becomes a useful tool to derail or distract in nearly any political debate, even one involving unprecedented global larceny and the collapse of the West.

Biology 101

At the moment of conception there is a quantifiable, unique human genetic code present along with independent, perpetuating cellular metabolic activity. Both can be examined and measured, both are indisputable conditions resulting from conception. This human genetic code, and the cellular activity that it directs continues in a linear, uninterrupted process from conception, to birth, through childhood, into adulthood and onto natural death from old age. The genetic code and cellular activity that exists at conception will continue to exist until that individual is 80 years old watching their grandchildren play on their front lawn.

There is no observable, quantifiable point, no “magic moment” between conception and birth where one “becomes human” or “begins life” beyond the most superficial, contrived measurements. Attempts such as noting the development of the nervous system are entirely arbitrary with proponents of such superficial measures unable to explain scientifically or quantify what this “mass of tissue” is before such measurements deem one human. Generally these arguments are peddled by those either entirely ignorant of human biology, or by those intentionally preying on those with an inadequate understanding of human biology.

Viability: Another popular metric used to determine one’s “human-ness” is viability. Again, this is entirely arbitrary and superficial. A new born is no more viable than they were at the moment of conception – entirely dependent on others for the delivery of nutrients to their body and protection from the surrounding environment. Additionally, technology negates the vulnerability of not only babies who are born prematurely at increasingly earlier terms, but the ability for a conceived human to be transplanted from one uterus to another. Inevitably, technology will make it possible to raise a human from conception to infancy entirely in vitro.

“It’s Your Body”: No doctor or scientist could agree with this sophomoric statement. Every single part of “your body” contains your DNA. This is why DNA testing is used to determine the identity of victims of fatal circumstances who have been reduced beyond superficial recognition. At the moment of conception however, an entirely unique human genetic code is present. It is in no shape, form, or way a part of the mother’s body, it is simply residing within it. In fact, evolution necessarily developed mechanisms to protect the developing child from the maternal immune system. Without such a mechanism, the maternal immune system would identify the child as a foreign body and attack it – because it is a foreign body.

Terminating a pregnancy is not removing unwanted features of “your body,” but removing the developing body of another human being. Abortion is literally killing a genetically unique, living human being.

Humanity Reduced to Ignorant Superficiality: Often cited as the number one reason why abortion and fetal stem cell research is not killing human life is, “it’s just a clump of cells.” Such an ignorant statement is made not because those who say it understand the seven conditions that describe life or have examined genetically this “clump” but merely because it superficially doesn’t resemble what they intuitively consider life.

This is analogous to arguments based on similar “intuitive observations” that the earth was flat or that universe was geocentric. Just as the earth appears flat when standing on it, despite being spherical in reality, so too does a human zygote appear but a “clump of cells” when in reality it is a living human being. To those at the mercy of their intuitive, ignorant understanding of the world, if it doesn’t have two hands, two eyes, and look familiar, it “must not be human life.” This is the result of an undeveloped, ignorant mind incapable of grasping or visualizing anything beyond the most simplistic concepts. We are still struggling to move past racism based on the same sort of elementary superficial prejudice and so it is no surprise that the basic idea of humanity itself has been reduced to such ignorant superficiality.

Conclusion

One may attempt to argue ethically or morally that killing a human life in utero has beneficial social implications, but one cannot argue they are not killing a human life. At the end of the day, the “pro-choice” argument is just as irrational, superficial, arbitrary, and baseless as they claim religiously motivated “pro-life” arguments are. In the case of abortion, science sides with the religiously motivated, even if they themselves don’t realize it or are unable to wrap their minds around this convenient fact. Capitalizing on the science behind abortion not only ends this non-debate, it forces both “pro-choicers” to defend their arbitrary belief system against hard science, while it gives rational grounding to the beliefs of many in the “pro-life” camp.

Science, as it turns out, has a tendency to side with the more universally common aspects of most religions, because religion itself is based on recorded observations of human sociology, even human sociobiology, over thousands of years. As a social species, we have developed sociobiological tendencies that are conducive to cooperation, empathy, and social harmony. It was the key to our success as a species just as sociobiological tendencies have been the key to the success of wolves, lions, apes, and other social species. This is what has become our “morality,” and again, giving it a scientific context eliminates the circular discussions and the rampant nihilism that is consuming and impeding our success as a species today.

The wanton dehumanization of our unborn is not conducive to cooperation, empathy, or social harmony. It invites irrational justifications to commit harm to our own species, specifically to members of our species we deem as “undesirable.” This slippery slope has been fallen down before, and one should need not be reminded the final results. http://mediachecker.wordpress.com/?s=eugenics

While surely an unexpectant mother is inconvenienced, her social viability itself potentially put at jeopardy, with her ability to properly raise the child even if she wanted to in question, justifying the killing of human beings, through a campaign of superficial, unscientific dehumanization is not the answer. If there are trillions to give to degenerate, speculating bankers, and trillions more to feed corporate wars, then there is also money to develop the technology to take unwanted children off the hands of those who don’t want them, and into the hands of those that will raise them – giving them, as we have been given, a chance to learn, explore, and experience the trials of life for all its ups and downs. Surely of all the inalienable human rights we supposedly have, this is the most basic.