Pro-life Arguments Against Abortion In Canada

This essay argues two major points. First, I explain that abortion stands against the Constitution of Canada and its intent, to be more specific, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The intent of the Canadian Constitution is to protect and preserve life, liberty, and security of each person that resides within Canada. The second argument that is to be presented in this essay is that a fetus is a person under physical development, both morally and scientifically, that is, a fetus is already a human being in possession of life independently of its mother (and others committed to taking its life).

In arguing these points, I set out some pro-choice arguments and explain why they are not valid. I go on to provide pro-life arguments which are, in my opinion, consistent with both scientific knowledge of the nature of reproduction, and moral and legal perspectives on a fetus' right to life, liberty, and security. As well, I identify some measures and facilities that are available to encourage, support, and empower women who may not be ready to have babies to keep them rather than resort to pregnancy termination as the sole “solution” to an “ inconvenient situation or problem”.

Abortion is the willful and intentional termination of a pregnancy through medical and sometimes unsafe methods. There are many reasons why a woman might choose to end her pregnancy. The leading causes of abortion, according to Alan Guttmacher Institute, are socio-economic. Less than 1% are done for reasons of rape or incest.

Abortion is against the Constitution of Canada because it violates the right to life, security, and liberty of the person. Abortion, other than in cases of when the mother’s health is concerned and endangered, should not be happening because there is no such thing as a right to kill a human being, born or unborn.

The right to life is a moral belief and principle that everyone has the right to live, and in particular, to not have their life taken by another human being. The Canadian Constitution addresses the right to life as a fundamental right that should not be violated by anyone. Abortion, by endangering life and eliminating it, ultimately violates this right. The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. Without the right to life all other rights, such as the right to liberty and security, are rendered useless. If your right to life is not protected, you are incapable of enjoying your other rights.

The right to liberty is the right to be free. Free of unfair and inhumane treatment, free to not have other people choose and decide whether you live or not. The new human zygote has a genetic composition that is absolutely unique in itself, different from any other human that has ever existed, including that of its mother (thus disproving the claim that what is involved in abortion is merely 'a woman and her body').

Is the human zygote merely a new kind of cell or is it a different kind of being; that is, a human being? Biology Online Dictionary describes an organism as “an individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis”. The human zygote fits this description perfectly. Once formed, it initiates a complex sequence of events to ready it for continued development and growth. The zygote acts immediately and decisively to initiate a program of development that will, if uninterrupted by accident, disease, or external intervention, proceed seamlessly through formation of the definitive body, birth, childhood, adolescence, maturity, and aging, ending with death.

This coordinated behavior is the very hallmark of an organism. By contrast, while a mere collection of human cells may carry on the activities of cellular life, it will not exhibit coordinated interactions directed towards a higher level of organization. By dehumanizing and pretending that a human zygote is not a unique human organism with its own unique DNA, you are denying their humanity and their right to life and liberty. The unborn child is not the property of anyone --- yes, including the mother. Consequently, this child does not deserve to have their fate decided by others who believe they should control whether they live or not.

The pro-choice position states that abortion is healthcare and frees women from unwanted pregnancies and it’s accompanied responsibilities. That could, among other things, shorten their schooling, threaten their career and their relationship with their significant others. In contrast, abortion does not free women. Abortion can damage the long-term physical, emotional, and psychological health of the woman who has had an abortion. As a result of abortion, women can end up being more at risk of breast cancer and other diseases.

Women who have undergone abortion are also more vulnerable to self-harm and suicidal thoughts than women who decided to keep their babies. Another issue with this argument could be that it is men who are freed by abortion not women. Men do not undergo the traumatic experience of abortion, the physical and mental scars that results from the termination of your pregnancy and the guilt that is born from it. We, as a society need to do better by helping single mothers and promoting adoption as a nobler alternative option to abortion, instead of promoting a culture of death by hiding it behind the curtains of freedom. Babies should not be viewed as “problems” that hinder women from achieving their career, life, or educational goals.

The other argument that is most often used, if not most used, by pro-choice people is that abortion is healthcare. It is not. Healthcare is supposed to improve the emotional and physical health of those concerned. Instead, abortion inflicts physical, emotional, and psychological trauma and pain on both of the woman and the baby. The methods that are used to perform abortion are inherently inhumane and cruel, and not at all healthy for any involved. The babies are dismembered, and at times, given chemicals while in the womb, so they could shrink to small sizes, enough to suck them out.

To conclude, the preceding arguments have clearly shown that the pro-choice movement is largely a movement of inconvenience. The arguments of the pro-choice people presumed that the unborn humans are obstacles to the freedom, career development, and a threat to the health of the women who carry them. The pro-choice group also presumes that a fetus or unborn children are “a clam of tissues or cellular cells” that do not have a life of their own. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As a matter of legal right, abortion undermines the right to life liberty, and security of babies. This babies have their own unique separate DNA and are medically independent of their mothers. As well, the fact society is ready to provide adoption services, counseling, and family support shows that society is ready to share the responsibilities arising from pregnancy of women who are raped, and those who are not ready to be mothers when they get pregnant. This is a demonstration of a collective social consciousness that it is for the greater good of all to preserve life, rather than wilfully and intentionally end it before such life even fully develops to contribute to the richness of our common welfare.