The Colliers Encyclopedia defines abortion as the direct and voluntary act of ending the life of an unborn child while it is still in the mother's womb. The author of the essay I am rebutting defines abortion simply as "murder." As one of the most widely debated ethical issues of all time, it is important that we approach it with rationality. On one side, there are individuals who favor a woman's reproductive rights, including the right to choose to have an abortion. On the other side are the religious fanatics, who may oppose abortion for any reason or who may only accept abortion under extreme circumstances, as when the mother's life would be threatened by carrying a pregnancy to term.
Even though we live in a land that was basically founded on religion, the fathers of this country made it clear that there is to be a separation between Church and government.
When a topic like abortion comes to light, though, people try desperately to cross that line. With the issue of life at stake, there must be a more logical approach than to immediately jump on the religion bandwagon. For those who tend to reason their problems, though, intimidation by means of a moral guilt trip simply will not fly.
The author of the opposing essay, whose roots are firmly situated in the religious grounds of illogic, claims that society sugar-coats abortion, calling it pro-choice and saying its okay to kill a child. He believes that the opposition does not think of abortion as murder. Instead, he says they justify it by claiming they don't have enough money or their future is too important. He obviously stands on the side of those who think that abortion is wrong, but I cannot salvage a reasonable explanation for why.