The fact that other areas of the world practice things which we morally forbid, or that items can be purchased illegally which are outlawed, is not a proper basis for law making. Our laws must be based on sound ethical principles; if abortion is the taking of the life of another, it must be forbidden by law. Further, whatever evidence can be gathered regarding this matter indicates that the backstreet abortionists remain active even after abortion upon demand is permitted.
Argument 5: Death before birth is better for the "unwanted" child, than living a life of "unwantedness."
To give people decisional powers to determine if another individual is "wanted" or "unwanted" is most dangerous. The implications of this viewpoint are staggering. Once human life is devalued to a level of human decision concerning its "worthiness" or its "wantedness," then the horrors of Nazi-defined "worthless" or "unwanted" human beings are again brought into the field of human dealings. Would some not place the severely mentally retarded, paralyzed, invalid, senile, and others in this same category? Further, do not many "unwanted" pregnancies result in "wanted" children after birth? Do not many "unwanted" children overcome severe social handicaps in their youth and function as useful adult citizens? Are not adoption agencies continually short of infants for parents who desperately want "unwanted" children?
A teacher once posed the following case to her class:
"The father of this fetus has syphilis; the mother, tuberculosis. They have had four previous children: the first is blind, the second died, the third is deaf and dumb, and the fourth has tuberculosis. The mother is now pregnant with her fifth child that is 'unwanted' and a clear 'risk factor.' If the parents desire an abortion, should this be permitted?"
After an intense discussion, the teacher informed her class that the child and situation she described was a true, historical one. The "unwanted" and "risky" unborn child they were discussing was Beethoven.