As many are probably aware, today was the annual March for Life in Washington D.C. Even with the impending blizzard coming upon the Northeast, thousands of people from all over the nation came together calling for an end to the horrors of abortion. I even heard that popular stars such as Kelsey Grammer made an appearance. Anyways, I recently had the opportunity to have a bit of dialogue with someone who calls herself pro-choice in a Facebook com-box post.
I jumped into the conversation a little late, where a few pro-lifers were already responding to this woman's objections. The main objection among them, was that life did not begin at conception, and when pressed, it was really hard to find out when exactly life does begin... that is, objectively and not subjectively. The discussion began from a meme talking about how a mother was showing her daughter her own pre-natal photos, while the mother referred to the daughter as a "clump of cells" Until she decided at birth she was a "human being". So the question of the whole meme was "When does life begin?" Our conversation starts with the pro-choice woman's answer. I've edited the conversation for brevity and have changed names (except my own, still Nicholas) and have also labeled each person by color. My posts will be in blue, Jo's will be in red, Mary's in green, Tom's in orange, and Anne's in purple.
Jo: Uhm, viability. 24 weeks. Biology isn't
that hard.
I jumped into the conversation a little late, where a few pro-lifers were already responding to this woman's objections. The main objection among them, was that life did not begin at conception, and when pressed, it was really hard to find out when exactly life does begin... that is, objectively and not subjectively. The discussion began from a meme talking about how a mother was showing her daughter her own pre-natal photos, while the mother referred to the daughter as a "clump of cells" Until she decided at birth she was a "human being". So the question of the whole meme was "When does life begin?" Our conversation starts with the pro-choice woman's answer. I've edited the conversation for brevity and have changed names (except my own, still Nicholas) and have also labeled each person by color. My posts will be in blue, Jo's will be in red, Mary's in green, Tom's in orange, and Anne's in purple.
March for Life 2013 |
Mary: That's funny...my friend's son was
viable before that. With neonatal technology getting more and more advanced,
you can't rely on that. There needs to be a more permanent indicator. Like,
conception indicating the beginning of human life.
Jo: Then, as a woman who's suffered with
infertility for over a decade, I've murdered dozens of babies. That just
doesn't make sense to me. Most hospitals will not provide care before 24 weeks
but there could be exceptions. Viability is the key. I've heard it a million
times. The best medicine in the world couldn't save my pregnancies or turn them
into babies that I could take home. In fact, because I have low HCG (apparently
rare, doc ordered a D&C at 8 weeks because my HCG was so low, but I refused
and she's turning 13 this year) I can't even get any prenatal support to help
prevent "spontaneous abortion". Are the conservative pro-life doctors
accomplices in my numerous murders? No. Conception without implantation is
incredibly common. Find a definition that fits how reproduction works. The
majority of sperm+ egg do not become humans.
Mary: I'm sorry for your loss; miscarriage
is a heartbreaking thing. It isn't deliberate like abortion. Cancer cells are
not human fetuses- fetuses/embryos- whatever stage of development they're in-
are separate individuals from the mother, with their own DNA, blood type, and
heartbeat. There is no comparison of the two.
Jo: Then I'd like to sue every doctor for wrongful death for refusing prenatal care based on a negative urine HCG. Can you see how this would get ugly?
Jo: Then I'd like to sue every doctor for wrongful death for refusing prenatal care based on a negative urine HCG. Can you see how this would get ugly?
Mary: Anyway,
if your definition of human is viability without help, does that mean adults in
comas or on life support or in wheelchairs aren't human? Or mentally challenged
people who need help taking care of themselves aren't human? Do you see the
slippery slope of this way of thinking? I don't blame you- I'd be angry, too.
Jo: Yes, cancer is a human organism. Cancer
is human cells that have reproduced abnormally and do so rapidly when exposed
to excess estrogen (as an example). My point was that human cells are not
exactly rare or inherently important. If someone doesn't want to carry a
pregnancy and she's not your surrogate and it's not viable, then what? We make
abortions illegal and desperate women go back to coat hangers? I'm not saying
that I want people to run out and have an abortion but it shouldn't be anyone's
business. I don't think that I have the right to tell anyone what to do with
their body, unless it harms mine. It just doesn't work for me.
Maybe you feel strongly about when life begins but after MANY trips down this road and many friends in support groups - I see that abortion laws hurt women like me and they won't stop someone who is determined to end a pregnancy. The stupid "partial birth abortion" law cost a friend her uterus as she was forced to wait until the dying fetus had no heartbeat before being induced. The resulting infection took away her ability to ever have children. There's no point in arguing with people passionate enough to join a FB group, but there's nothing black/white about life. Nothing.
Anne: There was actually a woman recently who did use a coat hanger in the literal sense. Her baby was born alive and was seriously injured, and will suffer from disabilities due solely to the actions of the mother.
Maybe you feel strongly about when life begins but after MANY trips down this road and many friends in support groups - I see that abortion laws hurt women like me and they won't stop someone who is determined to end a pregnancy. The stupid "partial birth abortion" law cost a friend her uterus as she was forced to wait until the dying fetus had no heartbeat before being induced. The resulting infection took away her ability to ever have children. There's no point in arguing with people passionate enough to join a FB group, but there's nothing black/white about life. Nothing.
Anne: There was actually a woman recently who did use a coat hanger in the literal sense. Her baby was born alive and was seriously injured, and will suffer from disabilities due solely to the actions of the mother.
Jo: I never said viability without help,
just viability without unconsenting help. Doctors and nurses and medical
researchers should absolutely do whatever they can. They are doing so
willingly. A woman denied an abortion is unwillingly carrying a pregnancy and I
have no authority to force her to do so. 1/4 of women are sexually assaulted,
throwing away birth control pills and/or poking holes in condoms is a form of
abuse/control.
Look, I work in social/behavioral science and I know what these unwanted kids endure. Some of them go on to carry a pregnancy at 13 or 14 as a result of being prostituted. I'm not just creating scenarios, I'm speaking of cases that I know about. Abortion seems cruel until you meet a young teenage girl who has no education, no idea that she has any other life options and she's pregnant by a 38yo drug dealer. Keep your convictions, just don't think that being pro-choice is the same as not loving your children (before and after they're born). But in my book, I was pregnant until she was viable, then I was a mother waiting for her daughter. I need that wall and some people need options.
Look, I work in social/behavioral science and I know what these unwanted kids endure. Some of them go on to carry a pregnancy at 13 or 14 as a result of being prostituted. I'm not just creating scenarios, I'm speaking of cases that I know about. Abortion seems cruel until you meet a young teenage girl who has no education, no idea that she has any other life options and she's pregnant by a 38yo drug dealer. Keep your convictions, just don't think that being pro-choice is the same as not loving your children (before and after they're born). But in my book, I was pregnant until she was viable, then I was a mother waiting for her daughter. I need that wall and some people need options.
Anne: The difference between cancer cells and
a fetus is that while both originate from human cells, cancer is abnormal and
is not intended to be present within the biological system of our bodies. Our
female reproductive systems exist with the purpose of carrying out
reproduction, just like how our integumentary system exists to protect the
muscular system and our digestive system exists to process food into energy
(not saying that these are the same as pregnancy; I'm simply making a
comparison between the intended purposes of biological bodily systems). It
would be difficult to define a fetus as a "parasite" or
"invader" under this context, because the production of offspring is
the natural purpose of the reproductive system and the keystone to the
evolutionary development of all animals. Cancer cells are an abnormal
occurrence that is not intended by the cellular process of meiosis, that
"natural intention" being the basis of my argument in this context.
Nicholas: For what it's worth, I am so sorry for the suffering you have endured with your miscarriages. However, you said:
Nicholas: For what it's worth, I am so sorry for the suffering you have endured with your miscarriages. However, you said:
"Look, I work in social/behavioral science and I
know what these unwanted kids endure. Some of them go on to carry a pregnancy
at 13 or 14 as a result of being prostituted. I'm not just creating scenarios,
I'm speaking of cases that I know about. Abortion seems cruel until you meet a
young teenage girl who has no education, no idea that she has any other life
options and she's pregnant by a 38yo drug dealer. "
I have to say, the above quote scares me. Are you implying
that these "unwanted kids" are better off not existing? Could you
clarify? If their mothers had the chance to abort them before they were born,
would that have been a greater good than allowing them to come to term and be
born? I ask, because no one's future is written at birth. You say
"abortion seems cruel", but I think it's more cruel to tell that
"young teenage girl who has no education" that doctors allowing her
birth is somehow more cruel than her mother choosing an abortion.
Jo: Yes, I believe that stopping the cycle
of abuse via abortion is more humane. We'll never agree on that and I hope that
you never have to see what I've seen. It's easy to believe in the goodness of
humanity when you aren't facing the ugliness of humanity every day.
"Why?" "I never wanted them in the first place." It will
rattle you...
Christ Blessing the Children- Vincent Sellaer |
[Also,] I said that I HOPE that others don't
have to see and that it's easy to see goodness without ugliness. Neither of
those said that other people didn't see ugly and think differently. You and
other posters have no business making assumptions about my emotional state. Not
believing the same thing as you does not show some emotional problem. Maybe you
all want to legally change the way that life is defined to conception because
you're bitter? There's certainly a question of what motivates you to want to
control other people. It's not a bomb. The neighbor's abortion isn't killing
you. It really doesn't involve you.
Mary: There is not, in Roe v Wade, a legal
definition for personhood; in fact, the SCOTUS specifically refrained from
defining it precisely because they weren't sure, given the technology available
40 years ago.
Jo: There's a big difference between an
unexpected pregnancy and one that a woman does not want to carry. You should
also note that several things have changed since the 70's. First, the
definition of abuse has become more strict and included more circumstances,
awareness has made reporting abuse more frequent, teachers are now mandatory
reporters and women have increasingly become self-sufficient enough to leave
and report abusive husbands. We talk about things today that just weren't
talked about 40 years ago. So, statistics really need to be looked at in
context. Is child abuse up or child abuse reporting up? I think that most
Americans know how screwed up the adoption system is and how crowded the foster
care system is right now. As my husband pointed out, I need to quit playing
chess with the pigeons and go adult.
Tom: Jo, just want to say I've argued the same points. People who want to poke holes in other's views can always do so. I agree that while abortion may not end abuse, I do believe it lowers it. But this is my belief & I have no proof. It reminds me of a death penalty debate I read about. The question was whether or not the death penalty detours crime. In the end, the agreement was that the only way to know for sure was to only execute criminals who committed crimes on Mon, Wed, & Fri & see if the crime rate dropped on those days. In the end, I don't believe life can be defined. Everything in nature kills other life to survive. Many animals kill their own young. The whole definition of life is complicated & involved. In the end, it's all about choice.
Tom: Jo, just want to say I've argued the same points. People who want to poke holes in other's views can always do so. I agree that while abortion may not end abuse, I do believe it lowers it. But this is my belief & I have no proof. It reminds me of a death penalty debate I read about. The question was whether or not the death penalty detours crime. In the end, the agreement was that the only way to know for sure was to only execute criminals who committed crimes on Mon, Wed, & Fri & see if the crime rate dropped on those days. In the end, I don't believe life can be defined. Everything in nature kills other life to survive. Many animals kill their own young. The whole definition of life is complicated & involved. In the end, it's all about choice.
Nicholas: "The whole definition of life is complicated
& involved. In the end, it's all about choice."
The above sounds a lot like what Justice Kennedy had
to say in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in 1992:
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s
own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of
human life.”
So the definition of life is "all about choice"...
meaning individual humans can decide on life's meaning without taking into
account absolute truths stemming from scientific fact? The point in the
original comic still stands. An arbitrary dividing line is drawn up by each
person as Justice Kennedy stated above when it come to defining human life. But
as pointed out above in previous posts, this isn't a philosophical question but
a biological one. At fertilization the egg and sperm cease to exist. A new
being is made with it's own unique DNA. This is specifically called a zygote.
Jo, I agree with Anne. You've assumed that I am
naive and that I haven't dealt with the ugliness of humanity. I have. And I have
seen the pain that others suffer through due to abuse. At least when you said
"Yes, I believe that stopping the cycle of abuse via abortion is more
humane"... you were being logically consistent with your "concept of
existence". I hope (well... I sort of hope not, I suppose) you are just as
logically consistent when you talk to that young teenage girl with no
education, and that you tell her that she was never wanted in the first place
and it would've been more humane if she were aborted in utero. If you do not
tell her this, I feel that's disingenuous. Why hide the "truth" of
the matter?
I can't be so pessimistic, I truly believe that each
person has equal dignity no matter their circumstances and no matter if they
were wanted or not. The answer to the "screwed up" adoption system (a
generalization) and the overcrowded foster care system is not extinguishing
whatever you have determined is inside a woman's uterus. We cannot stop the
denials of rights and dignity perpetuated by abuse by resorting to the
"humane" option of totally annihilating the rights and dignity of the
life growing inside the womb. You can't combat an annihilation of dignity
and/or basic rights with another annihilation of dignity and/or basic rights.
The difference between us humans and animals is that we are RATIONAL. We are
rational animals that can reason. Animals cannot do this, thus they do kill
their own young. This is barbaric when we see humans do it to their own
children. Therefore, this is why many believe it is equally barbaric to
actively snuff out the life of a unique child in utero. They deserve a chance.
They do not deserve to be written off out of hand. Their lives are worth much
more than that by virtue of being a member of the human race.
Jo: To tell a damaged young woman that
abortion would have been a better option is heartless and (sadly) unnecessary. By
teens, many have already reached this conclusion and require anti-psychotic
medications, therapy and then some guidance on what her CHOICE will be about
the pregnancy. There are trials to prep for and dozens of needs to meet. As I
said in several posts, I don't believe that those who are helping a person to
be viable (and really, some of these girls are half dead) by choice is the
problem. The girl is already here. No one is (any longer) caring for her
without consent. The best that can be done is get as much help as possible and
give her tools to grow into someone who can function.
Assuming that I was interacting in a capacity as myself and not a representative of an institution, I would encourage her to have an abortion. Maybe she'll be healthy enough to be a parent many years later but she needs help, no the responsibility of motherhood (and science tells us that early abortions are less risky than carry a child to term, especially for adolescent girls). I would provide facts, options and choices. Of course what I believe is that any young teen should have an abortion BUT I believe that it's her choice. There are fringe issues with choice (especially the relative powerlessness of men - the ability to transplant a fetus from one woman into another would be amazing) but we're not there yet. I don't want to control other people. I don't want to force anyone to have an abortion. I think that our culture has gotten so mixed up with the idea of "rights" that we missed the boat. Life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. I'm opposed to almost everything that is trying to push an ideology on other people.
Miscarriages are hard. I imagine that abortions are just as hard. I hear all of your reasons why human life is precious but it just doesn't fit my worldview. To think that all of these great and unique people could have grown up had my body been cooperative is really... spiritual or religious to me. I lost blood and pieces of tissue and I grieved the future that I had imagined. Isn't that what this whole argument is about? What do you imagine? I don't have any scientific research that leads me to believe that my fetuses suffered or felt pain as my body broke them down and expelled them. Logic says that the same is true of other abortions (spontaneous or not). I can't wrap my head around thinking that it's okay to force some one else (especially rape/incest survivors) to carry a pregnancy with all of the difficulties that brings because a middle class couples who can get through the adoption screening process wants it. It's called killing when a part of someone's body wants to get rid of the fetus (the brain) but not when my body does that exact same thing. If abortion is murder, IVF is reckless endangerment (putting living humans in an environment with a history of killing other living humans) and if that pregnancy ends in spontaneous abortion, it's manslaughter. That's what happens when you recklessly endanger someone and they die.
At the end of the day, I just don't want to have your worldview put restrictions on what I can do with my body and the same with all people. Should we decide on IVF and go through everything and find out that we'll either lose all of the fetuses or have to reduce, I don't want anyone other than my husband and I (along with medical professionals) in on the decision. I just see so many variables and different lives in this world and think that the more choices that we have, the better. Life isn't how we expect or imagine. I encourage you to pour money and backing into better medical science. Give the world more options, not fewer.
Assuming that I was interacting in a capacity as myself and not a representative of an institution, I would encourage her to have an abortion. Maybe she'll be healthy enough to be a parent many years later but she needs help, no the responsibility of motherhood (and science tells us that early abortions are less risky than carry a child to term, especially for adolescent girls). I would provide facts, options and choices. Of course what I believe is that any young teen should have an abortion BUT I believe that it's her choice. There are fringe issues with choice (especially the relative powerlessness of men - the ability to transplant a fetus from one woman into another would be amazing) but we're not there yet. I don't want to control other people. I don't want to force anyone to have an abortion. I think that our culture has gotten so mixed up with the idea of "rights" that we missed the boat. Life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. I'm opposed to almost everything that is trying to push an ideology on other people.
Miscarriages are hard. I imagine that abortions are just as hard. I hear all of your reasons why human life is precious but it just doesn't fit my worldview. To think that all of these great and unique people could have grown up had my body been cooperative is really... spiritual or religious to me. I lost blood and pieces of tissue and I grieved the future that I had imagined. Isn't that what this whole argument is about? What do you imagine? I don't have any scientific research that leads me to believe that my fetuses suffered or felt pain as my body broke them down and expelled them. Logic says that the same is true of other abortions (spontaneous or not). I can't wrap my head around thinking that it's okay to force some one else (especially rape/incest survivors) to carry a pregnancy with all of the difficulties that brings because a middle class couples who can get through the adoption screening process wants it. It's called killing when a part of someone's body wants to get rid of the fetus (the brain) but not when my body does that exact same thing. If abortion is murder, IVF is reckless endangerment (putting living humans in an environment with a history of killing other living humans) and if that pregnancy ends in spontaneous abortion, it's manslaughter. That's what happens when you recklessly endanger someone and they die.
At the end of the day, I just don't want to have your worldview put restrictions on what I can do with my body and the same with all people. Should we decide on IVF and go through everything and find out that we'll either lose all of the fetuses or have to reduce, I don't want anyone other than my husband and I (along with medical professionals) in on the decision. I just see so many variables and different lives in this world and think that the more choices that we have, the better. Life isn't how we expect or imagine. I encourage you to pour money and backing into better medical science. Give the world more options, not fewer.
Nicholas: Jo, to a few of your
points...
"The girl is already here... The best that can be
done is get as much help as possible and give her tools to grow into someone
who can function."
I agree with you here. Everything we can, be it from
government programs or the kindness of people's hearts (yes, there are kind
people out there), must be done to help these women. However, I would not
encourage anyone in any situation to have an abortion. I would encourage them
to explore their options, because if there is a "choice" that would
include more than the option of abortion. I would suggest
something like Aid For Women, which provides services such as counseling,
housing, life skills classes, and healthcare referrals:
http://www.aidforwomen.org/#freeservices
http://www.aidforwomen.org/#freeservices
You also say, "I don't want to control other
people." Then why make the decision of extinguishing a life that is not
yours. I suppose you've already established that you do not believe what is
growing in utero is a life; that it has no more importance than a cluster of
cancer cells. I am curious to know what your definition of "people"
or a Person" is. Is it solely the fact that they can sustain themselves
independently?
You go on to say, "To think that all of these
great and unique people could have grown up had my body been cooperative is
really... spiritual or religious to me." I don't think that one saying the
life of a unique human being is more important than that of an animal is implying
an overtly spiritual or religious connotation. The founding fathers of this
nation said themselves, "... that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." You seem to emphasize
liberty, but only the liberty of one that is autonomous enough to fit your
subjective definition of personhood. I think that your idea of "[being]
pregnant until she was viable, then I was a mother waiting for her
daughter" is just as "spiritual" or "religious", if
not more so in my opinion, than the idea I quoted at the top of this paragraph.
I say this because this idea of "viability" makes you the sole
arbiter of when life begins, independent of what anyone else, or any other
objective science might say.
Who has made you the arbiter of when life begins?
Obviously, in your book, a change happened when your daughter became viable. If
a change happened over the course of time during those 9 months of pregnancy, then
we should be able to measure the exact point, the exact SECOND, of when your
daughter gained personhood and when she gained viability. One moment you were
just pregnant with some cells. The next you were carrying your daughter. I see
no scientific backing for such a scenario. Do you see the problem here? How can
you subjectively decide when one is a live and when one is not, because there
are thousands of women who will disagree with you; some thinking viability
happens when the baby first moves. Others when the baby is born. Would you like
to tell these women they are wrong? Who is right?
This is the problem we have when we ignore objectivity
and substitute or won subjective thoughts on a process that has already been
defined by science. Studies objectively assert that: "The development of a
human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly
specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the
female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition.
Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"Although life is a continuous process,
fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a
new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination
of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the
zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed.
The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." [O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human
Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8,
29]
I will take the word of objective studies, such as
these two, over your subjective definition of the beginning of human life any
day.
You also said, "It's called killing when a part
of someone's body wants to get rid of the fetus (the brain) but not when my
body does that exact same thing. If abortion is murder, IVF is reckless
endangerment (putting living humans in an environment with a history of killing
other living humans) and if that pregnancy ends in spontaneous abortion, it's
manslaughter." First off, yes I believe IVF could be considered reckless
endangerment. I'm against IVF for several reasons, including the fact that when
there are an "excess" number of embryos we get the PC term
"reduction" of those embryos. Or those embryos are left to languish
in a freezer somewhere. Here's where I really see a flaw in your logic though.
My father-in-law has epilepsy. While this is rare for
him, once in a while, he has seizures. He and my mother-in-law are moving soon.
Let's say we are both carrying the TV stand upstairs from the basement. The
stair case there is really steep, and I mean steep. He goes up the stairs first
and we're both struggling with this TV stand. He stops near the top of the
stairs, and then pushes the stand and lets go as I tumble down the stairs,
break my neck, and am crushed by the heavy TV stand. This was an act of his
will, an act of his brain, as you say. This was pre-meditated. He decided to push
me down the stairs, thus he would be guilty of committing murder.
But now let's change the circumstances but not the end
result. We get to the top of the stairs and my father-in-law pauses. He starts
going into convulsions as he has a seizure. I can't keep the stand steady since
he has let go. I fall backwards, break my neck, and am crushed by the stand.
This results in my death. My father-in-law's body has failed him, just as the
body fails when a spontaneous abortion (a miscarriage) happens. He did not will
my death, and no court of law would convict him of murder, or manslaughter for
that matter. For the same reason, a miscarriage is not murder or manslaughter,
and I sincerely hope you have never felt that way at any point during your
miscarriages. I know for a short time my wife felt guilty for failing our child
when she miscarried, but she soon realized that sometimes the body breaks down.
She didn't will it. She was not at fault for the loss of the pregnancy, and
neither is any woman who suffers a miscarriage.
As you said regarding my outlook on life, I would also
like to assert I would not like to have your worldview, Jo. Yours seems to
put an emphasis on bodily autonomy of one person in the equation, the mother;
but when your definition of what forms a body, in other words a person, is so
subjective… your argument falls apart. I agree with you, "the more choices
we have the better." I do donate to medical scientific research, in part
so that doctors can find a way to treat women so they don't have to suffer as
you suffered. As my wife suffered.
However, I don't think that abortion is a good option
as we infringe on the liberty of the person in utero. Due to your
philosophical, and what I would call your "spiritual" (but not
scientific) beliefs, I understand you will not call such a being a person. It
is my hope with the advancement of medical science, we will have more options
in the future for women, and with the advent of those options, and with the
advent of recognizing that what is growing in the uterus is indeed a person...
we will no longer have a need to present abortion as an "option".
No comments:
Post a Comment