As I start this, I want to make it clear that I understand that abortion has been around for as long as humans have populated the earth. But there has been a very significant increase in abortion since evolution was accepted as a method of development for the many species of the world. There are some very interesting connections between certain people in our history that led to a thought process making abortion acceptable.
The idea of evolution was not originated with Charles Darwin. It was an idea that was already being postulated, but his studies and conclusion just solidified what scientists, looking for a way to disprove Creation, were already thinking as they began to explore biology and explain its origins. The most significant receiver of the information Charles Darwin conveyed was his cousin, Sir Francis Galton. Sir Francis Galton was a highly intelligent man, considered a ‘polymath' or ‘jack of all trades’ , and master of all. He was influenced strongly by an 18th century pastor named Thomas Malthus, who was heavily involved in determining methods of population control, which included such ’necessary evils’ as infanticide, homosexuality, war, contraception and murder. Not surprisingly, Francis Galton’s pet subject was eugenics. In fact, he is called the ‘Father of Eugenics’. For those who may never had heard the term, eugenics refers to
applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population, usually referring to human populations. In other words, eugenicists seek to ’purify’ the human race. Galton studied human genetics and was fascinated by inheritance of genes in the next generation. Darwin’s theories, especially that of ’survival of the fittest’, prompted Galton to adopt the idea of encouraging marriage between individuals with superior genes . He thought that abilities and intelligence could possibly be inherited characterstics and that, if they were, then society should encourage those with the best characterstics to marry and produce offspring like them. This, he hoped, wouldHumans differ from animals and plants in our ability to care for others and manipulate our environme produce more intelligent, productive people and reduce unintelligent, unproductive people. He studied what he called ’nature vs. nurture’ to determine if good character qualities were inherited or instilled. In his ideas about ’eugenics’ or the reproduction of people with ’good’ qualities, he proposed a plan to assign marks to families and encourage early marriage between those with the best marks to produce the best offspring. This reliance on ‘survival of the fittest’ lead to people like Hitler deeming Jews and others as ‘unfit’. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, labeled poor and blacks as ‘unfit’ and sought to eliminated them through selective reproduction, contraception, forced sterilization and eventually abortion. In her own words, “Birth control must lead to a cleaner race.” (April 1932 Birth Control Review, p. 108). Margaret Sanger used both the theories of Galton and Malthus to develop her arguments for birth control in the early 1900s. 
The problem with all of this is that one person is determining the destiny of another based on their own ideas of what is fit and unfit. The truth of the idea of ‘survival of the fittest’ is that it only applies to living things existing in the wild and not to humans.Humans differ from animals in our ability to care for others and manipulate our environments to be optimal for survival. ‘Survival of the Fittest’ is based on predator/prey relationships and environmental factors. As humans, if we believe this is true, that those who are ‘unfit’ (disabilities, unwantedness) should not be allowed to survive, we are becoming predators of our own kind. In the wild, a weak, disabled animal holds back the larger group and make them susceptible to danger from others who would seek to harm them. These members are often abandoned to fend for themselves and left to die. Environmentally, animals without the ability to hide from predators also become ‘unfit’ in that particular environment and don‘t survive to reproduce. Ironically, these are exactly the animals we take in. Our zoos are filled with the 'unfit' of the wild. We have white tigers, albino deer, birds with missing wings and eyes, and the list goes on. Yet, human babies with disabilities, the wrong gender or just conceived at the wrong time are deemed 'unfit' and killed by the millions every year.
Evolution plays a role in another way. Evolution eliminates purpose from a person’s life. Purpose becomes defined by the person himself as he progresses through life. So, in theory, if evolution is true, then an abortion isn’t negating a life, only ‘potential’ life. Watching my own son from conception through his four years on this earth, I see that this is not true. He was born with a personality that I saw while he was still in utero. It wasn't potential, it was programmed. He is who he is because there was already a life programmed into him both physically and spiritually. To end his life would leave a gaping hole this world would miss as is true for every life that has been lost in the history of humanity.
We have not evolved, we were created with purpose and life. It’s a dangerous road to take when one person gets to determine whether another lives or dies based on their own definition of who is ‘fit’. It’s time we abandoned theories and anchored ourselves in truth.
