top of page

Roe v. Wade outrage shows why life must be protected at conception. Here's how.

Updated: Dec 14, 2023

Author: Jordan G Estabrook

In a post-modern world, we have separated person and human. We have struggled to define life and slowly removed its inherent, God-given worth. Abortion went from safe, legal and rare, a statement indirectly implying abortion is not preferable, to shouting your abortion from the rooftops, a statement of pride and right. How did we come to this, and how did the value of life degrade so far?

We must ask ourselves a series of simple questions and answer them honestly. What makes life valuable? Is it applicable only if it contributes to society? If it has all its limbs and full cognitive development? If the child is 20-weeks-old?

These are the questions that people on the pro-life and pro-choice spectrum have debated over the course of 50 years. With Roe v. Wade gone, the debate has only intensified.

If we only define the value of unborn life based on contributions, the ability to care for oneself, and mental and physical development, then born life is in danger.

“A fetus can’t contribute to society.”

Neither do some older people regarding their physical strength. Do we take their life?

“A fetus can’t survive by itself outside the womb.”

Neither can a six-month-old or someone with Down Syndrome. Do we take their life?

If the full development of limbs and brain is required to be considered life, what about people born without certain limbs or someone born on the autistic spectrum? Do they not count?

Some on the left are honest. They want abortion if autism is present. California passed a law allowing infanticide and other states permit late-term abortions. Eugenics laws still exist in the United States—points for consistency.

There’s a reason why unborn lives can’t be measured on external variables. If you measure unborn life by these standards, you must do the same for life outside the womb. And this becomes what we must wrestle with.

There is a way out of these mental gymnastics. We no longer have to wrestle if we can accept the logical conclusion of life’s inherent worth and protect it at conception.

We can accept its inherent worth right there and then. We cease to try to find the difference between an 8-month-old baby in the womb and a day-old baby outside the womb. We don’t have to draw an arbitrary line. We no longer have to convince ourselves and others that it’s just a cell or organism. We can finally be honest.

We can breathe a sigh of relief, at least concerning logical consistency.

The left can’t look at logical consistency. If they do, their whole emotional appeal falls apart. To justify the killing of the unborn, the logical inconsistencies must be ignored in order for abortion to prosper.

“But Jordan,” you say. “I’m not pro-eugenics. I just want women to have the right to choose. Such an implication deeply offends me.”

Very well. Some people have jumped to that extreme, but not you yet. It may be slower.

Pew Research found “...a rising share of U.S. adults who are not already parents say they are unlikely to ever have children, and their reasons range from just not wanting to have kids to concerns about climate change and the environment.”

56% of those who are not parents said they probably won’t have kids because they don’t want them. We must ask another question: what has led to this increased desire not to have children?

Perhaps it starts with seeing children as a great burden rather than a blessing. Young people see the movement to abort unborn life and parents who constantly complain about their children online or in person. One does not have to kill life to devalue it.

It’s how we had a six-month pregnant woman with “not yet human” written on her stomach.

It’s how we have women outraged that they can’t kill their child in the womb.

It’s how we have an increased number of people who don’t care to have children.

It’s how we’re willing to experiment with sexual and transgender ideology on school children.

Life's value does not depend on the circumstance is ideal or tragic. Life is valuable because it is. It should be accepted as inherently precious. By this standard, all life is protected, valued and treated as such. What we see today is valuing oneself above anything else - above inconvenience, hardship and sacrifice. We must embrace those three things first if we love others above ourselves.

Perhaps our selfishness is how we’ve come to this.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily represent those of Resident Skeptics.

62 views0 comments


bottom of page