I provide this article as a commentary and advisement regarding the issue of abortion. My observations are made from my perspective as a resident in Albuquerque New Mexico, but my comments and conclusions may be applicable nationwide.

As the 2024 election approached, the Democrat party launched an all-out media blitz on New Mexico’s two most promising Republican candidates for Congress, Nella Domenici for Senate and Yvette Herrell for the House of Representatives, following the same proabortion strategy they used to great effect in 2022. The Albuquerque Journal also published a front-page article on October 7 criticizing Nella’s position on abortion.

In 2022, about 10 weeks or so before the election, the Albuquerque Journal published a poll of New Mexicans in an article titled Voters Divided on Abortion Restrictions. In the lead paragraph, the article stated, “But likely … voters surveyed last week were nearly three times more likely to say abortion should always be legal than they were to say it should always be illegal.” Farther into the article the actual poll results were provided that showed this was a true but deceptively misleading statement, and their lead conclusion was never modified in the article. Following is the actual poll result. In the poll, the question was “Which comes closest to your view on abortion? Abortion should:

A. always be legal                                                                                       35%

B. be legal with some restrictions                                                             22%

C. be illegal except for rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life            25%

D. always be illegal                                                                                     12%

The poll shows what I consider the extremes, A on one side and C+D on the other, to be evenly represented. If we count response B with C+D, one can truthfully state that 59% of all New Mexicans polled believe there should at least be some restrictions placed on abortions. The questions of the poll are also polarized and fail to probe the nuanced middle ground where many Americans likely position themselves. Ironically, choice A is the rule of law in New Mexico today where abortion is unrestricted up to the time of full-term natural birth. This shows a disconnect between those governing and those being governed in this state.

Both candidates, Nella and Yvette, ran for offices in Congress. The Supreme Court overturning Roe vs Wade turns the issue of abortion over to the states and the people, as it should be if it is indeed a right unrecognized by the original Constitution in accordance with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. Thus, bills posited for or against abortion have no place in Congress. Discussions regarding abortion at the federal level should be moot at the outset. Making abortion an issue in campaigns for Congress create a divisive distraction from real existential dangers facing the United States of America.

Roe vs Wade had restrictions included in the original decision by the Supreme Court. Lawsuits that followed that landmark decision rendered restrictions for the third trimester powerless based upon psychological arguments. What I think is important to note in Roe vs Wade is the principle developed by the Supreme Court to decide their restrictions —viability. At what point does the unborn child have a right to life that can only be superseded if the lives of both mother and child are at stake and a choice between the two must be made. If the mother’s life is not in danger, when does the life of the child take precedence? My problem with their decision is they only considered viability as the likelihood of survival if the child is removed from the womb. At that time viability was somewhere around six months. Today it is not very different.

I believe if viability is the consideration, then it should be determined based upon the survivability of the child when left to develop naturally in the womb. This is the normal course of human development. Basing viability upon premature birth survival biases the odds against the potential human life residing in the mother’s womb because it uses an abnormal circumstance.

An article that draws on several studies (https://mommyhood101.com/pregnancy-odds-ovulation-to-birth), looks at the odds of normal birth at the various stages of pregnancy. The concept of conception is a bit of a fuzzy thing. The odds of a fertilized egg becoming implanted in the uterus following a woman’s monthly period, ovulation, and fertilization is only about 20%. This happens at about 3 to 4 weeks. However, once implanted, the odds of survival to a successful natural birth increase dramatically to 67%. With each passing week thereafter, the odds of survival only increase. At about 6 weeks the odds for the embryo to achieve a normal birth are about 76%, and at 7-8 weeks the odds of survival to full term delivery are 89%. After 28 weeks the odds are 99%survival.

At 8 weeks the fetus has a head, body, arms, legs, hands, feet, eyes, nose, and most importantly, a heartbeat. A beating heart is generally used to determine whether a person is alive or dead. Basing viability on the odds of an embryo or fetus surviving a premature birth is basing the decision on an abnormal course of events. It should be based upon a natural normal course of events. Further, it is reasonable that if the lack of a beating heart determines when a life ends, it is most reasonable to conclude that the advent of a beating heart clearly confirms that a life has begun.

Taking this further, imagine being a child unconscious in the emergency room hooked up to life support equipment and had an 89% chance of survival to return to live a quality normal life if they would just send you home with your mother with some low maintenance and low-cost life support going for several months. Would you want them to maintain the support, or pull the plug and let you die (7-8 weeks)? How about 67% odds (4 weeks)?

I think Republicans have failed to counter back with criticism of the Democrats extremely radical position. From what I can tell, every Democrat in Congress supports, or at least goes along with, their radical agenda of unrestricted abortion up to full term delivery. Some Democrats have gone farther suggesting a live delivered baby could be left unattended and die of starvation if the mother so chooses. Putting this last absurd item aside, killing a fetus in the womb that has a heartbeat is bad enough, but killing a fully formed fetus that has a greater than 99% chance of survival is clearly best defined as murder.

I personally prefer that no abortions would be necessary, but I also believe there should be room for women to make the difficult decision to terminate an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy within reasonable well-defined reasons and limits. From a non-religious position, it is reasonable to set those limits around the clear indication of a viable life, a heartbeat.

I agree with Nella that greater emphasis should be placed upon education regarding birth control. I also emphasize moral education to teach both men and women the value of human life and responsibilities engendered in sexual relations and the human reproductive process. Those supporting abortion routinely avoid moral considerations when discussing the issue and base their arguments entirely upon women’s rights. They avoid productive discussions and actions toward a society that values each human life and teaches the responsibilities implicit when engaging in sexual relations with a potential to result in pregnancy. This monolithic argument based entirely on a claim to a right reminds me of the Democrat-controlled southern states’ pre-Civil War argument of a right to own slaves, ignoring the moral arguments opposed to treating humans like cattle and horses.

All my analysis about when a human life in the womb is viable uses rational arguments based upon human biological and medical science. We live in a free country that includes freedom of religion that allows some individuals to do things that others consider immoral. In the 2024 election, Yvette Herrell’s opponent twisted her comments expressing her personal Christian beliefs regarding abortion into some sort of radical position.

Holding a Christian worldview is not a radical position. Those claiming a Christian belief represent the largest religion in the world, nearly a third of the world’s population. This worldview supports the opening sentences and the closing sentence of our nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence. The Christian faith is the same viewpoint that guided the founders of this nation to create a governing document designed to protect individual freedoms and prevent an overbearing centralized national government. It’s the same faith that led Christians to lead the movement, championed politically in the United States by Republicans, to abolish slavery.

So, what is the basis for Christians to oppose abortion? It is the same as the basis cited in the Declaration of Independence for the creation of our nation. It is acknowledgement of God as our creator. The Biblical scriptures cited in support of the case against abortion do not speak directly against abortion, they speak of how we are creations of God. Scriptures speak of how we are fashioned and knit together by God in the womb. They also speak of how we are foreseen by God even before conception. At what point does an abortion interfere with God’s creation? Taking the entirety of scripture into account, God’s plan for our lives begins before we are conceived. When a man and a woman engage in intercourse, we do not know what outcome God has planned.

The Bible also teaches us that in our minds there is a constant battle of good and evil. Jesus teaches us how to overcome evil with good, and scriptures abound in the New Testament regarding how one goes about that overcoming. If someone is not in tune with God’s will when making life choices, they may make a decision, such as a choice to have an abortion, that disrupts God’s intentions for good. Was that aborted child destined to become one who could find a cure for cancer, or maybe bring about lasting peace in the world? More often perhaps an aborted child could have brought into the life of a mother and father a joy, a saving life lesson, or some good benefit for someone else. What great human potential has been extinguished, and what blessings from God have been lost in the millions of abortions that have taken place in our world?

The need for a choice to have abortions in our nation should be a focus of concern. In my book, To Concerned Americans, I begin the first chapter with the importance of recognizing God as our creator to ensure that political officeholders make decisions that will result in the best outcomes for all citizens. This fundamental is equally applicable to abortion. Abortion is a choice that results primarily from a lack of sound socialization and moral behavior. A significant step can be made in reducing the perceived need for abortion by raising children into responsible citizens that value every human life and recognize the responsibilities as well as potential joy and love inherent with bringing a child into the world. In a nation with the broad freedoms that we have, this may not be something that can be completely regulated by law but could be brought about by an awakened Christian church.