Followers of the second are equally steadfast in their opinion that to equate abortion to murder rests on a wafer thin foundation of religious beliefs and that embryo neither has life not is an individual with rights. The choice to or not to abort should vest with the pregnant woman. The debate arouses virulent passions2.
To being forth the intensity of emotions aroused by the contentious issue of abortion and some semblance of objectivity, viewpoints of a male and female author have been considered. The female is a staunch anti-abortionist, and the male an ‘enlightened’ believer in freedom of choice. In the interest of simplification, the adherents of divergent viewpoints have been placed in two categories, namely, pro and anti abortionists.
In an article titled, “Abortion rights are pro-life,” Dr. Leonard Peikoff3 takes an aggressive stance, and wonders why the pro-abortion rights forces are on the defensive. He willingly provides the answer: because nobody is any longer defending the right to abortion on moral grounds. He exhorts the pro-abortionists not to be apologetic and fight tooth and nail. He believes that “the embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person,” and “is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person.”
Diane S. Dew, a mother and an anti-abortionist campaigner, in an article titled, “Its a child, not a choice,” argues that society’s penchant for defense of rights of an individual smacks of the diabolical and pro-abortionists have blown it out of proportion. She contends that the pro-abortion lobby is backed by vested interests, notably, doctors, for whom “abortion is big business.”
Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, our nation has lost an entire generation to abortion. We