Tuesday, October 16, 2018

The Abortion Question (Discussion)

Hi, readers, who are probably long gone.

I'm back (58473 weeks late) with a conversation I had with a friend of mine. I have begun to avoid the word debate when it comes to actually having conversations about topics that are controversial, because as soon as you crack that word out of the bag, everyone goes into this odd "I-am-right-you-are-an-inferior-human-with-inferior-mind" mode, so instead, I propose to have a simple, civil conversation.

Since I'm too busy to keep up a weekly blog, I will use this blog to post some conversations I've had with others, as well as additional content if I have time. Hope you enjoy.

(Blue text indicates the things I said and the red text indicates the things the other said)

THE FOLLOWING HAS NOT BEEN TRICK EDITED OR CUT AND PASTED. THE WAY IT IS POSTED IS THE EXACT ORDER OF THE CONVERSATION.


So, I currently believe that abortion is murder and is therefore wrong. I truly understand this is sometimes a touchy subject, so can we both agree to avoid all emotional arguments? 
Please feel free to change my mind.

Ok, so I'm pretty sure both of us can agree that a woman should have access to a safe abortion in the case of rape or incest (please correct me if you don't agree).

I realize that adoption is an option for those seeking abortion, however, there are currently hundreds of thousands of children in foster care. outlawing abortions would only increase this number, as some women feel they're not ready to be a mother/the child may grow up impoverished/the father is abusive/etc. and even if the government were to make abortion illegal, they would only be outlawing safe abortions. When someone doesn't have legal access to something, it's basically inevitable that they'll obtain it illegally. Unsafe abortions could kill the mother. On that note, some women seek abortions because of a medical condition that could kill them at birth/they know the baby will be a stillbirth. I can definitely elaborate on anything if you have questions.

If at any time I sound rude, let me know. It's just hard for me to articulate sometimes.

I am glad to start by finding common ground. With no offense, I disagree that all women should have access to legal abortion. But let's try to find something to agree on. Such as the definition of abortion. How shall we define abortion in this conversation?

Let's classify it as the termination of an embryo or fetus 0-5 months into pregnancy.

May I ask a few questions?

Absolutely.

By "termination," would it be fair to define that as "kill"?

I probably wouldn't be able to tell you that without bias because I am very liberal, but I believe, since the embryo/fetus has not existed outside the womb, terminating it inside the womb would not be the same as killing it outside the womb.

Is an embryo/fetus alive?

I think that, since it hasn't technically existed outside the womb, it is not yet alive. I guess it's all about perspective though.

Shall we agree upon the premise that the embryo/fetus is alive?

For the sake of argument, sure. I feel confident in my views and I think I can defend myself well if need be.

Is the fetus a human?

A developing human.

So the fetus is a human?

Like I said before, the fetus has not emerged from the womb and is therefore not prepared for life at the time of abortion (abortion generally does not work after the fifth month of pregnancy).

I understand. Yes or no question: is the fetus a human being? It's not a hard question, and I would appreciate finishing this thought before moving on.

Just because it's not fully developed at the time of abortion, I would say no.

Ok. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so tell me if you agree with this: a fetus isn't a human because of its level of development.

Technically, it is of the human species. However, due to its level of development, I don't consider it to be a human.

Ok, so you believe that a fetus is not a human because of its level of development?

Yes.

Question: being serious and not sarcastic, do you believe I'm a human?

Yes, because you have developed. No fetus is really human in such a rudimentary state of being.

You just told me you believe a fetus is not a human because of its level of development, but at the same time you say that I'm a human being, yet I have not fully developed as a person.

Tell me, if a newborn baby is considered a human, despite the fact that it has not yet fully developed, then why isn't a fetus considered a human? A fetus is a less developed baby.

Ok, so what I'm trying to say is that a fetus is not yet an independent human and subsists on the mother for nutrients to grow until the time of birth. While you are not fully developed, you are independent from the womb, actively use your senses, and have your own thoughts.

Just to clarify, you believe a fetus isn't a human because of its level of independency?

Yes.

I daresay we're getting too hung up on this, can you move to the next question?

May I quickly explain why this is crucial to the discussion?

It's because the entire question of abortion is whether or not it is right, it moral. And to know that, we must define abortion. And to know whether or not abortion is murder, we have to know if the fetus is human or not. You see, if the fetus IS a human, then abortion should be illegal because it is killing a person: murder.


So to continue, you said that a fetus isn't a human because it is not independent on a mother for survival. Well, born babies depend upon their mothers to feed them, nurture them, and protect them. And so the level of dependency of a human has nothing to do with being a human. Take special needs people for example. Some people cannot physically feed themselves or do anything without aid, but we don't take away their humanity. So why should we say it's right to take away a fetuses humanity just because it depends on a mother?


During the time that an embryo or a fetus could be aborted, it's more like a cluster of cells than a premature baby. I don't know about you, but I believe there is a very distinguishable ethical difference.

Scientifically speaking, the moment that a sperm cell penetrates an egg cell, (moment of conception) is accepted as the moment that "a cluster of cells" becomes a real human being. You didn't become human when you were born. Nobody was. Everybody became their own individual person, with their own individual genetics a the moment of conception. So it is not fair to call embryos "nonliving clusters of cells" when scientifically speaking, they are humans.

I'd like to say that you're one of the few people I've discussed this with who truly believes that a drop of activated semen combined with an egg cell is immediately a baby. Not to put it bluntly, that's just what I've learned from countless debates on this topic.

At this point, it was late, and the person I was talking with needed to go to bed. I decided to end with one more thought:

When does that "cluster of cells" that are nonliving become a living human? When does the embryo become a human and no longer considered extraneous tissue?


I was very interested in continuing the discussion, but the latter expressed disinterest, and so I let it drop. Guys listen. One important key to being a good influential speaker: LISTEN TO THEM. TRY TO UNDERSTAND THEM. AND BE RESPECTFUL. People will always disagree on something, so there's no use feeling personally attacked or get defensive if your opponent wants to stop.

BY THE WAY... oops. I forgot about Textbook Tales. But heh, SIKE I WILL be completing that series, but not on a weekly schedule. School is my number one priority right now, and that means I don’t really post or write during school weeks. So... watch out for holiday breaks….I’ll be busy 😉

Thanks for reading, guys.
~Caleb A

No comments:

Post a Comment