Distinct from our petition urging for the universal criminalization of rights-violations, which was addressed to the United States government, what follows is an appeal from us, the very young, to abortion advocates for the reconsideration of their position. It is a plea not to those whose obstinacy is rooted in base truculence or even sloven, slipshod thinking, but to those whose perspective is founded upon thoughtful and sincere concern for what is perceived to be the just rights of women.

Gentlemen and ladies, you assiduously aver that the fight for abortion rights is tantamount to the fight for women’s rights. This contention is mistaken and in need of correction, for you forget, or are unaware, that there exist many of our own number, roughly half, who are, or otherwise would be, female and whose rights, as a matter fact, must be violated in order for your confused comprehension of women’s rights to be secured. What you are really fighting for, simultaneously, is women’s rights and the suppression of women’s rights. You are, however and at least, equitable in your own way, for – were abortion rights to be wholly and broadly obtained – we unborn, of either sex, could expect to be treated with an evenhandedness not often found outside of the womb. Namely, our property rights in our own persons – male and female, alike – would, under your program, be perfectly forfeit.

You abortion advocates often offer another justification for your position; explicitly, that the violation of our rights is purely licit because we may not be able to be properly provided for. Without suggesting that any life outside of the womb is an improvement to our condition – an enhancement, not a deterioration – we would instead point out the need in this justification for practical consistency. To wit, if our rights may be ignored due to an inability to secure for us adequate provision, then the rights of relevantly similar folk may likewise be trampled upon and for the same reason. Plainly put, if simply not being sufficiently equipped to bear the burdens associated with procreation serves to warrant the violation of our rights, then it serves also to warrant the violation of the rights of, say, newborn babes, infants, toddlers, and on and on – for there is nothing so unique about persons in these later stages of development that would suggest that they should not be subject to the very same outrages by which we are bedeviled.

You abortion proponents will likely cite things like size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency as relevant differences between us and born persons that serve to vindicate the gulf between the sordid treatment that we must endure and that which is enjoyed by our womb-surviving counterparts.

But surely a person’s size is not relevant to his or her value. For one cannot posit that the size of a person dictate the extent to which others ought to respect his or her rights lest, in addition to abortion, one also condone actions as base as bullying.

And certainly personhood cannot be impacted by a qualifier as trivial as level of development. For one cannot assent to the notion that natural rights cannot obtain in less-developed persons lest, in addition to abortion, one also condone the rights-trampling of the mentally disabled or even newborns or infants (less-developed, as they are, in comparison to toddlers or school-aged children).

Furthermore, as toddlers and school-aged children can travel from home to daycare or preschool without compromising their value, so too can we traverse the birth canal with our innate value intact and unaltered; our personhood is peremptorily ordained by our coming into being, not by our mere exit from our mother’s vaginas.

And injustices do not become less intolerable as persons become more independent. In fact, the inverse might be the more moral way of seeing things. Violence done upon an adolescent is less egregious in this regard only to violence done upon a school-aged child, and that only less egregious than violence done upon a toddler, and so on. Why stop this line of reasoning at the delivery room door?

We, the unborn, constitute human life. To believe otherwise is to be on the wrong side of science. We are persons – and we thus possess the same rights inherent in all such life. These rights cannot be granted by men, and they cannot be seized without the occurrence of injustice. No person has the right to violate the rights of an innocent person, even and especially if so doing is the result of a choice.

It is profitable to note that, while the foregoing was concerned with an emotionally charged issue, it attempted to deal with it in an unemotional manner. No religious argument was proffered and bombastic language was particularly eschewed. In fact, special care was taken to avoid a certain word – the inclusion of which would likely be viewed as an attempt at provocation, and cause something of an exacerbation of tensions between you abortion advocates and your pro-life adversaries. Upon reflection, however, this word must nonetheless be broached, for, as it has been stated, “a burst of plain speaking has more effect frequently than the most polished circumlocution.”

To speak plainly, abortionists, what you are propounding is murder; murder arbitrarily deemed legitimate on very young persons, on womb-aged children. This is speaking bluntly, but the thing is very evident. It is crude, but clear. The word murder may appear an ugly word to many people. We respectfully ask such people: Is it the word or the thing that frightens you?

With God,

The Victims of the Institution of Abortion