From Eagle Action Report
The Governor of Alabama recently signed into law the most "restrictive" abortion law in the country. I put "restrictive" in quotations as it is normally, correctly understood as having a negative connotation, but restricting evil is a good or positive thing. The main proponents of the law, aside from simply wanting to protect innocent life in their own state, hope that through this law the supreme court will change its ruling of Roe v. Wade. What the court lacked recognition of in that 1973 decision is the fact that the life of a person begins at conception, and that the right to life means that within a nation one may not justly intend to kill an individual unless that right is lost due to grossly immoral actions committed by the same individual. As children in the womb are in no way capable of willfully committing such actions it is impossible to intentionally take their life without acting unjustly and immorally. Some opponents of the Alabama law have essentially said that because these children will become murderers eventually it is better to execute them now. Obviously judging someone on actions that they have not committed and have not even shown that they wish to commit is ridiculously unjust and goes against the principle that one cannot do evil for the sake of doing good.
Up until now this writer has been assuming that life begins at conception. How can one show this?
Many organizations have given individuals the opportunity to recognize the life of the child in the womb through visual media. This more sensory approach to convincing people that what is in the womb is indeed alive and is recognizable as a human has many obvious merits. It reaches society on a level at which it is capable of understanding, since much of society has more difficulty accepting the logical reason for why what is in the womb must be a human person. In addition to reaching society where it is now, this method acknowledges the fact that humans take in information first through the senses, and then reflect on it with the intellect. Therefore, it is naturally easier to convince someone with physical reality rather than reasoned facts. While good, this method will not bring one fully to the truth because what many unfortunately assume is that only when an organism exercises its powers can it be said to be alive. Hence, they say that it's not a person until it can feel pain. Feeling is not what make us human; reason is. And humans don't gain that ability until about the age of seven. Consequently, if one cannot say that the child is human until it appears human or displays distinctly human abilities, then we will only get part of the truth.
Humanly speaking only reason can convince someone of the whole truth; that at the moment of conception there are no longer two cells with their own separate existences, but one distinct individual. Analogously, everyone recognizes that when one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms combine, those elements no longer actively exist, but are replaced by the active reality of water. Further, it is not simply a combining of the properties of the two elements, as one would find in a mixture, but it is a new entity with its own distinct set of characteristics. In chemistry one proof that molecular change has taken place is the distinct properties of the new substance. With life there is an even stronger proof. Without combining, atoms of oxygen and hydrogen will continue to exist in their present states, but the reproductive cells of the parents which do not combine will die within days. They will not reproduce themselves and they only contain half a set of DNA. Once they have combined, though, the new cellular entity is not just capable of reproducing itself, but instead will grow within a short time to be recognizable as a person, assuming nothing kills it along the way.
In conclusion, because we know that a new substance comes into being from other substances at the instant of combination, we know that the person must be present from the moment the two dis-similar reproductive cells join.
Read an article from American Thinker concering the wave of pro-life wins in different states within the past year below.