Planned Parenthood is a recent addition to my knowledge base. But with the floodgates that opened due to the release of the sting videos, this organization has been brought to the forefront of my thoughts repeatedly over these last few weeks. I have been watching Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers passionately erupt since. To say there have been strong responses from both sides would be an understatement. And I am left to consider: Could these videos have been an elaborate hoax by Pro-Life advocates in hopes to eliminate a large national abortion provider? It is highly possible. When people feel strongly enough about a cause they will often do anything to further that cause, especially when they believe it is for the greater good. But, could this also have been a legitimate inside look at an organization that is now backpedaling and smoke screening to maintain appearances? It is also highly possible. When people are exposed for what they are, they attempt to save face at all costs in order to survive. So I am unsure as to which side I stand on this whole 'Defund/Don't Defund Planned Parenthood' controversy.
I am, however, solidly standing on one side of the abortion controversy.
James Bopp, an attorney who testified at the recent House Judiciary Committee hearing against Planned Parenthood said, "One of the great tragedies of human nature is that, what history later judges to be gravely immoral, seems perfectly moral to those engaged in the action at the time. Human sacrifice, slavery, genocide, gladiatorial moral combat, and capital punishment for minor offenses are all examples of activities once thought to be moral, but are now considered gravely immoral. That is the position we are in today."
The discrepancy that believers on either side of the abortion controversy have left continuously unreconciled is the 'define when personhood begins' issue. Which is not surprising; historically, mankind has an impressive track record of attempting but ultimately failing to define 'personhood' and the rights that accompany it. The subjugation of women, use of slavery, multiple genocides, caste systems and other numerous heinous acts of our past and present all should remind us of that. Instead, it has become human tradition that the masses now balk at yet another attempt to designate who is (or not) a 'person'. Now; if there really is a light switch moment somewhere in gestation when a fetus becomes a person deserving of individual rights and bodily autonomy, then abortion is perfectly moral until that switch is flipped. But if there is no such moment, if life, if 'personhood', really does begin at conception, abortion has weaseled its way into society as an acceptable practice, cleverly under the guise of morality.
That is, in fact, what it comes down to. We cannot have it both ways.
It is fruitless to continue to use the disputed, varied, and ever changing legal definitions of 'person', when there is a scientifically definable, universally irrefutable term that we're completely avoiding. The word is 'human'. The first question that must be asked is then: Is a fetus 'human' or not? We have come a long way since discovering the existence of the building blocks of life known as cells. Today, cellular anatomy is simply common knowledge. DNA resides inside each cell, forming itself into chromosomes. Every organism has different shapes, amounts, and types of chromosomal pairs. These chromosomes replicate and divide as cells replicate and divide, allowing genetic material to pass to every cell of each specific organism. Cells are central to our understanding of the genetics of living things. While we are still understanding the specifics of genetic science, the basics are incontestable. Indeed, we are human because our cells are human. Therefore a fetus is human, definable on a cellular level. As a nation, we have done a great job of convincing ourselves 'fetus' is somehow separate from 'human', despite the cellular evidence. But if we can agree that cells are the foundation of humanity both collectively and individually, then we can look at this controversy from a perspective grounded in the ubiquity of science and unbiased by individual views on 'personhood'.
The next question we must ask is this: Is human life valuable? Unfortunately, this is impossible to answer with a plea to any of the sciences. Still, the answer must either be unequivocally yes or unequivocally no. Every time mankind attempts to qualify the answer about the value of a human life, the rights we associate with our own 'personhood' are always denied someone else. And that is a moral fallacy. For the logic that would deny a Black, a Jew, a Christian, or a fetus the rights of the human family, will ultimately end up denying me mine, or you, yours. And I, for one, contest the logic that has previously and does currently designate characteristics irrelevant to humanity; such as skin color, gender, religion, or developmental achievement, as grounds for persecution or extermination.
If human life is valuable, it must then be afforded all rights that are included as membership of its humanity. The most basic of which is right to life. To do less is to treat that being as something other than what he is. It stands to reason then, that whether we acknowledge the science which declares a fetus human, and whether we believe human life to be universally valuable or not, is all that matters in connection with abortion. These two questions, one based in science, the other in common morality, are pivotal to understanding this debate. For if we think to honestly answer yes to both, all other arguments surrounding abortion fall short:
There is the argument back and forth about the ability of a fetus to perceive pain until a given point. But pain perception or lack thereof does not alter humanity. There is the argument back and forth about fetal viability. But fetal viability does not alter humanity. And as shown by the rapid multiplication and division of fetal cells, cellular viability is reality from conception. It is purely developmental that total organic viability come later. There is the argument that all babies should be wanted. But being wanted does not alter humanity, though it does alter value. And if we place higher value on a human that is wanted over one that is not, we are living a dangerous moral lie. There is the argument that fetal behavior is parasitic in nature. But cellular anatomy, not behavior, determines humanity. There is the argument that abortion saves lives. But it does so only when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, in which case terminating one life prevents the loss of two. There is the argument for the bodily autonomy of the mother. But the right to bodily autonomy, the right to privacy, and the right to choose are contingent on the woman's right to life, making right to life the foundation to all other rights. So although a mother may wish to not be pregnant, or to not give birth, abortion denies a foundational right to a human being, based on her contingent rights. To do so is another moral inconsistency.
That is what it comes down to.
If a fetus is somehow not human life, or if all human life is not equally valuable; then all Pro-Life arguments fail, and abortion is perfectly moral.
But a fetus is human life, and all human life is valuable.
There is no abortion controversy. There is only abortion. There is only murder.
It's our responsibility to end this atrocity.
I am, however, solidly standing on one side of the abortion controversy.
James Bopp, an attorney who testified at the recent House Judiciary Committee hearing against Planned Parenthood said, "One of the great tragedies of human nature is that, what history later judges to be gravely immoral, seems perfectly moral to those engaged in the action at the time. Human sacrifice, slavery, genocide, gladiatorial moral combat, and capital punishment for minor offenses are all examples of activities once thought to be moral, but are now considered gravely immoral. That is the position we are in today."
How true it is. When mankind learns from the past we advance with amazing capacity. But, when we begin to think ourselves superior and therefore immune to the mistakes of our predecessors, we become colossally ignorant of our colossal ignorance. "That is the position we are in today." We are in the position of deciding if abortion is moral, or gravely immoral. We are either progressing toward greatness, or we are stumbling around in self proclaimed 'advancement' blind to our own stupidity.
That is, in fact, what it comes down to. We cannot have it both ways.
It is fruitless to continue to use the disputed, varied, and ever changing legal definitions of 'person', when there is a scientifically definable, universally irrefutable term that we're completely avoiding. The word is 'human'. The first question that must be asked is then: Is a fetus 'human' or not? We have come a long way since discovering the existence of the building blocks of life known as cells. Today, cellular anatomy is simply common knowledge. DNA resides inside each cell, forming itself into chromosomes. Every organism has different shapes, amounts, and types of chromosomal pairs. These chromosomes replicate and divide as cells replicate and divide, allowing genetic material to pass to every cell of each specific organism. Cells are central to our understanding of the genetics of living things. While we are still understanding the specifics of genetic science, the basics are incontestable. Indeed, we are human because our cells are human. Therefore a fetus is human, definable on a cellular level. As a nation, we have done a great job of convincing ourselves 'fetus' is somehow separate from 'human', despite the cellular evidence. But if we can agree that cells are the foundation of humanity both collectively and individually, then we can look at this controversy from a perspective grounded in the ubiquity of science and unbiased by individual views on 'personhood'.
The next question we must ask is this: Is human life valuable? Unfortunately, this is impossible to answer with a plea to any of the sciences. Still, the answer must either be unequivocally yes or unequivocally no. Every time mankind attempts to qualify the answer about the value of a human life, the rights we associate with our own 'personhood' are always denied someone else. And that is a moral fallacy. For the logic that would deny a Black, a Jew, a Christian, or a fetus the rights of the human family, will ultimately end up denying me mine, or you, yours. And I, for one, contest the logic that has previously and does currently designate characteristics irrelevant to humanity; such as skin color, gender, religion, or developmental achievement, as grounds for persecution or extermination.
If human life is valuable, it must then be afforded all rights that are included as membership of its humanity. The most basic of which is right to life. To do less is to treat that being as something other than what he is. It stands to reason then, that whether we acknowledge the science which declares a fetus human, and whether we believe human life to be universally valuable or not, is all that matters in connection with abortion. These two questions, one based in science, the other in common morality, are pivotal to understanding this debate. For if we think to honestly answer yes to both, all other arguments surrounding abortion fall short:
There is the argument back and forth about the ability of a fetus to perceive pain until a given point. But pain perception or lack thereof does not alter humanity. There is the argument back and forth about fetal viability. But fetal viability does not alter humanity. And as shown by the rapid multiplication and division of fetal cells, cellular viability is reality from conception. It is purely developmental that total organic viability come later. There is the argument that all babies should be wanted. But being wanted does not alter humanity, though it does alter value. And if we place higher value on a human that is wanted over one that is not, we are living a dangerous moral lie. There is the argument that fetal behavior is parasitic in nature. But cellular anatomy, not behavior, determines humanity. There is the argument that abortion saves lives. But it does so only when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, in which case terminating one life prevents the loss of two. There is the argument for the bodily autonomy of the mother. But the right to bodily autonomy, the right to privacy, and the right to choose are contingent on the woman's right to life, making right to life the foundation to all other rights. So although a mother may wish to not be pregnant, or to not give birth, abortion denies a foundational right to a human being, based on her contingent rights. To do so is another moral inconsistency.
That is what it comes down to.
If a fetus is somehow not human life, or if all human life is not equally valuable; then all Pro-Life arguments fail, and abortion is perfectly moral.
But a fetus is human life, and all human life is valuable.
There is no abortion controversy. There is only abortion. There is only murder.
It's our responsibility to end this atrocity.
Comments
Post a Comment