Abortion: what both sides do agree on

The reality of what an abortion destroys...a cluster of cells like all of us

Screaming down those who we think are wrong on the matter of abortion is self-defeating because it is an attack on our own right to free speech. To then argue that some speech—or the carrying of banners—is a form of violence in itself, and therefore is not worthy of respect is, again, undermining our own right to say what we regard as the truth.

In each society, the free flow of information and opinion—but not hate speech—is vital for the good health that is, the proper functioning of the corporate body, the community, in which we live and derive our well-being.

These thoughts arose a few days ago when I came across an argument relating to abortion, an argument dealing with what are often barbed slogans or catchcries that show the lack of thought by the person doing the declaiming.

That the fetus is not a person, that the fetus is simply part of  the mother's body, that the fetus is just a clump of cells, that abortion is a woman's right—all slogans that are more fashionable than factually true.

So let's look at some of these slogans, using for the sake of convenience, information on the website of the American organisation, Students for Life. The specific information we are using is available in full here:

Is the fetus a person? 

“Personhood” refers to the legal recognition of human beings in all stages of life—beginning at biological conception—as human persons having full natural and civil rights. Personhood is controversial to those who advocate abortion, for they view preborn humans as mere “clumps of cells” with no legal rights. All of us in the pro-life movement are for the full, legal recognition and protection of personhood for all human beings. It does not matter if these human “clumps of cells” are an embryo, toddler, adolescent, adult, or elderly person [My emphasis - BS].

What is unquestionable

Scientifically, abortion advocates cannot deny that a fetus (which is a Latin word meaning “young one”) conceived by two humans is anything other than a human. To do this would be to deny the fundamental law of biogenesis.

They must also admit that the new human is alive. A human zygote, embryo, fetus—all stages of pre-born life—align with the very definition of the word “life”, which is: “The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.”

Abortion supporters have been trying to convince Americans that personhood laws would outlaw hormonal contraception because it can destroy a “fertilized egg,” not a human being. Yet, a fertilized egg is a human embryo. In fact, 95% of biologists, including pro-choice ones, agree that human life begins at the moment of fertilization—when the sperm and egg unite and create a genetically distinct human being. [Go to the linked article and read the study that provided this statistic about the scientific agreement on the start of each person's life as a human being.]

Dirty work at the crossroads 

Nearly 60 years ago, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists changed the definition of pregnancy to begin at the implantation of the human embryo into the mother’s uterine wall, not the moment of fertilization—conception—when a human life is formed.

This definition of pregnancy was carefully changed in order to allow a “cover” for IVF, cloning, stem cell research, hormonal birth control and birth control devices, and other reproductive debates. It’s conjectured that this decision was also in the interest of making sure Christians and other pro-life Americans would buy birth control without concern about its morality. The effect has been devastating and today, many Americans now confuse the moment of a person’s creation (fertilization) with that of when the embryo implants into the mother’s uterine wall a few days after (implantation).

Both sides agree on a key point

Abortion supporters often admit that science says the embryo or fetus is a human being. They just refuse to accept that the human being in question is a person with rights. Even the most ardent abortion proponents, such as Princeton philosopher Peter Singer, admit that science proves life begins at conception, but choose to deny personhood to these most defenseless of human beings.

As pro-lifers, we believe that a human being obtains personhood, inherently, at the moment of creation (fertilization/conception).  We know there are dangers when the state decides if a group of human beings are persons or not. Think back to slavery and the Holocaust – both of these cases displayed an instance in which the state determined the "level" of personhood afforded to certain groups of human beings.

We know that the size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency of a human being should never determine whether or not that human receives personhood status.  So, yes, all pro-lifers are for “personhood.”

Personhood laws

Personhood laws that could be passed in the future would recognize that a human being becomes a person at the moment of fertilization. For pro-lifers, it seems like there would be no hesitation to vote “yes” on these bills. However, the debate rages among those in the “mushy” middle, and pro-abortion activists: would personhood laws ban birth control and IVF? 

If personhood laws pass, hormonal contraception will not be banned.  It is true that manufacturers of the birth control pill indicate openly that the pill is capable of causing early abortions by preventing implantation due to an artificially thin endometrium.  All evidence suggests this is true, therefore we oppose their use. However, if and when hormonal contraception is proven to destroy a human embryo, the state legislature would have to assemble all available evidence that it destroys a human person, and then pass concurrent legislation.

Other mislabeled “contraception” drugs and devices that have scientifically been proven to cause abortions, like [the morning-after pill] ella (www.ellacausesabortions.com) and IUDs, would be banned under this legislation, for part of their purpose is to destroy the human embryo. However, whether or not these would be banned immediately is anyone’s guess. The Legislature would have to pinpoint an instance in which one of these “contraception” methods worked as an abortifacient before this would happen.

If a personhood law were to pass, it is likely that a majority of IVF practices would be banned. Currently, many IVF practitioners take multiple eggs from a mother, create multiple embryos with the father’s sperm, and then implant 2-3 back into the mother, freezing or discarding the rest.  Learn more about IVF here. 

The most chilling notion that has been expressed recently about abortion is that even if the fetus is a human being, the mother should still be permitted to kill that being should she think some disruption to her life would occur by carrying the baby to full term. More horribly, some women go so far as to claim they have the right to kill the baby even after the birth.

I hope the argument presented here is useful in informing your understanding about what abortion involves. The ideas here are rarely aired in the mainstream media, which is besotted with the permissive stance of those who illogically claim rights in areas of life where there is no scientific, factual or moral basis for destroying life that is human. Fundamentally, rights cannot be invented for the purpose of shirking a responsibility to a fellow human, no matter the age of that "clump of cells", a topic of some sensitivity for me personally, being a member of the baby boomer generation!

Ω See full photo Mart Production at Pexels

Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.