top of page

Voting For Life

Updated: Aug 26, 2020

The CDC states that in 2014 alone there were 652,639 legal abortions (or killings) reported.

That number does not include abortions performed in California or New Hampshire, as theses states do not report abortion statistics to the CDC.

I will not vote for a candidate, republican or democrat, who supports abortion.

Why? Premise A: a fetus is a human being from conception, and because of that, they should have all the rights of human beings living outside the womb. A reasonable person would not vote for a candidate, no matter how good their other policies are, if that candidate supported a policy kill over 650,000 people a year for reasons such as poor quality of life, emotional distress, because there are safer ways to kill people, or if the government does not allow people to kill each other, then its going to happen anyway. Would you support the government killing someone outside the womb for any of the above reasons? Society has managed to dehumanize unborn babies in the eyes of many Americans.

But what if the child is born into poverty or an abusive environment?

This argument states that it is acceptable to kill a human being (premise A) based on their quality of life. I do not find this acceptable. A reasonable person would not vote for a candidate who would want to kill the homeless, depressed, drug addict, chronically ill, or immigrant fleeing his or her country for a better life, or anyone else that society may considered to have a low quality of life. So, why an unborn baby?

But what if having the child causes the mother to remember and re-live her rape experience?

This argument is based on the presumption that is okay to kill another human being (premise A) based on a negative emotional response elicited by the presence of another human being. However, a reasonable person would say it is not acceptable for a person to kill a blonde-haired man because he reminds her of her rapist, who also has blonde hair. Just because another person elicits a negative emotional response does not provide reason to kill. So, why an unborn baby who may or may not remind the mother of her rape?

But a person should be able to do what they want their own body?

This argument is just plain false and misleading. An unborn child has a different set of genetic coding, can have a different blood type, and sometimes a different Rh factor than the mother; therefore, an unborn child is not the mother’s body. Now, an unborn baby may cause hormonal changes affecting the mother’s body, but this is not a reason to kill. Everyone we come into contact with affects our bodies via hormones in one way or another. Some reading this may be angry with me, so their body is now releasing epinephrine and norepinephrine causing their pupils to dilate, increasing their blood pressure, decreasing bowel motility along with urine production, and the part of their brain that controls reasoning in shutting down. This is all happening without me being in the same room as them. Does that give them adequate reason to kill?

But people will just get “back-alley” abortions if it is illegal, and those are unsafe? Well unfortunately bad choices have consequences.

Banning abortions will not decrease the numbers? There is no data to support this claim. It is just an excuse. And, what does that say about the character of our society if we are not willing to call something wrong because of a perceived outcome (that is most likely false)? Lost!

Abortion is the biggest crime against humanity that we face today, and that is why I will place my vote solely on a candidate who is against it.

The right to human life is more important than our economy, our immigration policies, and the feelings of those around us. The failure to protect human life at its most vulnerable state is egregious.

- Joshua Lewis, RN

Pro Life Man Contributor



bottom of page