Opine: The Plague of Dehumanization

What better way to inaugurate my new blog than with a missive on abortion, the systematic, state encouraged—and sponsored—mutilation and killing of defenseless babies? For me, abortion is the issue. It is the most pressing policy-related concern that there is in this country, and possibly the world. The reason: it represents an unprecedented widespread sanction of mass murder. Despite the fact that arguing against the right to kill babies is easiest from a spiritual standpoint, I'll steer clear of that mode or argument; I'm looking at it logically and as scientifically as possible. The following is replete with what could be considered strawpersons, red herrings, arguments from ignorance and the like. Amusingly enough, it nevertheless contains a more honest and direct set of arguments and observations than I have encountered elsewhere online. I see it as at the lesser of the evils, if nothing better; where a typical pro-choice argument might build a flimsy “unhinged bible thumper" or “patriarchy/male domination/machismo” strawman to attack, I sincerely invoke examples of the best arguments I know; where a typical pro-choice argument might invoke red herrings such as incest*, mine (see “Conundra, loopholes and hypocrisy” section below) expose inconsistencies of logic; whereas I recognize that placing the burden of proof that an embryo is not a human being in the hands of the pro-choicers is something of an argument from ignorance, the typical pro-choice argument commits the significantly grosser error of attempting to obfuscate the fact that they cannot objectively illustrate the reverse claim. It's an argument from ignorance with much more dangerous consequecnes—plus its proponents deny it altogether. The Semantic Framework For the discussion of this issue, a few reasonable premises must be accepted: First, we must agree that murder of the innocent is wrong (immoral, unacceptable, whatever you prefer); we also must agree that humans are innately more valuable than other animals. The former is almost universally acceptable, while the latter sees very little, albeit some, disagreement. However, I believe that most humans are in practical agreement about human superiority, whether or not they choose to admit it. In other words, they either eat animals, wear animals, own animals, eat food harvested by machinery modeled after the toils of animals, and/or use products/pharmaceuticals tested—or based upon tests performed—on animals (the list could easily continue—that's another essay entirely). And yes, there are those who take issue with—or see no moral element to—murder. I think this societal element is so insignificant as to be inconsequential. If you cannot accept both of these premises, further reading would be pointless. Also note that throughout this essay, unless otherwise indicated by the context, when I use terms like embryo, fetus and zygote, I am referring to the human form of this being. In other words, do yourself a favor by refraining from the nitpick-as-red-herring method of reading this. If you honestly know what I mean to say, don't discount my writing based on technicalities; you know what I mean—ignore it and proceed. You'll notice that I often refer to the embryo as he/she instead of it. I realize that it makes my argument appear circular, since I am attempting to illustrate that what one might consider an “it” is really a he/she, simultaneously using the personal pronoun as though it were already properly established. Again, please consider this semantic in nature. Because I happen to know the validity of such pronoun use before writing this essay, I am virtually forced into it on principle. If it bothers you enough, just pretend “he” or “she” really means “it”. To boot, consider that scientifically, the sex of the zygote is established by the chromosomal disposition of the sperm cell, immediately prior to his or her formation. So it's objectively a he or she at that point—even if you doubt his or her humanity. What Is Abortion? From here, we must proceed with defining abortion. For my purposes, I am referring to the intentionally induced destruction of the unborn human, at any stage of development. This spans from the moment of fertilization to the post-partum child. I understand that the word abortion has no innate connotation of unnatural or intentional inducement, but the all-too-common spontaneous abortion due to internal complications is in another category entirely. Whereas the “natural” abortion is analogous to dying of natural causes, the externally-induced abortion is analogous to willful murder. The simple syllogistic construction behind my opposition to abortion and so-called “choice” looks like this: 1. Murdering an innocent human being is wrong 2. An unborn child is an innocent human being 3. Abortion murders an innocent human being (Therefore) 4. Abortion is wrong It's quite simple as you can see. For your standard, morally-centered human, abortion can only be justified through the process of dehumanizing the unborn human. This process disputes items 2 and 3 above, attempting to claim that unborn children are something other than human beings. However, as you will read, this attempt at dehumanization relies exclusively upon arbitrary—and in my opinion, disingenuous—presumptions about unborn children. Abortion is justified in a manner similar to virtually any appearance-based devaluation of humanity in history, from ethnic-based mass-murder and slavery to the mistreatment of women. In short, it's all about dehumanization. “It's not a person; it's just a blob of cells.” Contrary to much of the published propaganda, terms like embryo and fetus denote designations, not to distinguish between lifeforms, but to categorize developmental stages of the same lifeform. Any doubt as to the veracity of this notion can be eliminated by asking an obstetrician to define “fetus”. He will necessarily be bound by reference to developmental age, not some fundamental change into another being. Any definition of a fetus will contain the constraint of “8-weeks of development,” meaning an embryo stops being referred to as such at that stage of development. Ronan O'Rahilly, world-renowned Nomina Embryologica board (the international body that determines correct terminology for human embryology texts) member and co-creator of the well-known Carnegie Stages, a reference widely accepted by the medical profession as an essential tool for the basic understanding of embryonic development, has this to say in his classic text (co-authored by Fabiola Müller), Human Embryology & Teratology: "Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks . . . the fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth. (p. 87)” Also contrary to published propaganda, the embryo is considered by embryologists (the scientists whose job it is to know embryos) to be the life form initiated immediately following fertilization. Despite attempts in the past few decades to manufacture the term, there is no such thing as a “pre-embryo”. However, despite the lack of acceptance by embryologists of this fabricated term, you'll still find it plastered both in pro-abortion and purportedly unbiased information centers. And I'm not crying conspiracy; you should never find “pre-embryo” in the literature of any legitimate primary source for embryological information. No embryologist would use this term outside of a clear policy-based agenda. The “Pre-Embryo” factor I invoke this appellation for good reason. It exemplifies the pro-abortionist attempts to unscientifically obfuscate what would otherwise be clear definitions of humanness. In the case of the “pre-embryo,” it was manufactured in a deliberate attempt to dehumanize the embryo prior to implantation. For instance, the RU-486 drug often works by preventing the implantation of “pre-implantation embryo” (note: this is the term used to represent the embryo during the first several days before implanting at the uterus; you'll find it in embryology texts and scholarly papers, where pro-abortionists would use “pre-embryo”), which is ultimately expelled (and hence killed) in a manner similar to what occurs at menstruation. The term has obvious value here, as it helps justify this form of abortion; since she's not quite an embryo yet, they claim, she can't possibly be human. Again in Human Embryology & Teratology, O'Rahilly belittles this deceptive invention: "The ill-defined and inaccurate term 'pre-embryo',” he writes, “. . . is not used in this book, (p. 55)” providing the following explanation: "(1) [The term “pre-embryo”] is ill-defined because it is said to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or to include neurulation; (2) it is inaccurate because purely embryonic cells can already be distinguished after a few days, as can also the embryonic disc; (3) it is unjustified because the accepted meaning of the word embryo includes all of the first 8 weeks; (4) it is equivocal because it may convey the erroneous idea that a new human organism is formed at only some considerable time after fertilization; and (5) it was introduced in 1986 'largely for public policy reasons'. (p. 88)” The most significant is point 4, which touches on exactly why the term has been invented. It hopes to use equivocation to create the impression that something other than an embryo exists at some point following fertilization, but prior to implantation. Yet there is no pre-embryo; and users of this fabricated term attempt to use it to describe an embryo as far along as a week into development. Even biologist and embryonic stem cell research supporter Lee M. Silver affirms in his Remaking Eden that the term “pre-embryo” has been "embraced wholeheartedly for reasons that are political, not scientific," calling the term “useful in the political arena where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo experimentation." The fact is that every embryo is a genetically unique individual, with an already determined sex, and, like an infant or toddler or adolescent or adult or geriatric, is a human at the precise level of development expected according to human biology. Even at his or her single-celled state, the embryo is already producing human enzymes and human proteins. “The zygote,” O'Rahilly writes, “is a unicellular embryo and is a highly specialized cell. 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. (p. 33) This statement affirms that at even his or her single-cell stage, an embryo is an embryo, and nothing less. “[J]ust as postnatal age begins at birth,” O'Rahilly writes, “prenatal age begins at fertilization. (p. 88)” Human . . . We have established that the lifeform that is created immediately following fertilization is objectively—scientifically—regarded as an embryo—nothing more or less. By deduction, it is absolutely undeniable that this embryo is a human embryo; this life-form is, as a matter of fact, human. Here, pro-choicers might wish to distinguish between the noun and adjective use of “human,” which is perfectly reasonable. After all, something can be human, in nature, without being A human being. Take, for example, hairs, fingernails, urine and skin cells. The American Heritage Dictionary's most applicable definition of the adjective form of “human” is “Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans.” This definition would satisfy uses such as “I found a human finger” or “I heard human cries.” In both such instances, we aren't professing that the nouns being described (finger, cries) are actual human beings. They are merely human in nature. They are not alive in any biological sense. Pro-choicers might choose to admit that embryos are human—in the descriptive sense—but not necessarily humans themselves. However, that embryos are human is easily established by examining their genetic makeup. No one and nothing biologically human (persons, organs, tissues) will have anything other than human DNA, nor will any being other than a human (dogs, spiders, trees) have anything but non-human DNA. In this sense, it is irrefutable that an embryo is human in nature. From here, one could infer that being human in nature—at the most basic level—satisfies the requirements for the designation “human being.” “If his or her DNA is human, he or she is a human being,” right? The debate could end here, except that there are other biological components that would meet the “human DNA” criterion without necessarily being discrete human beings (see examples above). However, unlike embryos, none of these other examples are distinct, separate organisms. Every embryo has his or her own distinct set of chromosomes and a unique genetic fingerprint. Again, by objective definition, every embryo is a distinct and separate organism or (as American Heritage defines the word) “an individual form of life.” . . . Being In defining being, the American Heritage Dictionary refers to “The state or quality of having existence.” Something that exists, something that is, is a being. As it applies to humanity, it further defines a “being” as “a person” and “a member of the human race.” So, is an embryo? Does he or she exhibit “the state or quality of having existence”? Clearly he or she does. So now what can we state unequivocally? Well, an embryo is: 1. Human (in nature) 2. A distinct organism 3. A being An embryo is a human, a distinct organism and a being. He or she is obviously, therefore, a human being. At this point, any reference to a soul, a spark of life, the ability to feel pain, consciousness, a developed nervous system or a beating heart is irrelevant. None of these things amount to criteria for an objective designation of human being. Sure, there are subjective arguments that can be made, with wholly arbitrary rationales; still, they all miss the point in an objective analysis. That he or she lives is telling; her DNA is confirming. Spinning in circles People claim that saying something as bold and accurate as “Human embryos are human beings because they are beings that are human” is circular in nature. It relies, they claim, upon self-affirming presumptions, or hides behind semantics. However, I believe that another popular mantra of pro-choicers is both a circular argument, and much more dangerous to ignore than the statement above. Most Americans appear to be against/repulsed by abortion per se; even many people who describe themselves as pro-choice would probably agree with the statement, “I would never have an abortion myself, or encourage someone to do so, but I also believe in a woman's right to choose with regard to her own body.” The problem with this originates, I believe, from the fact that people choose to examine the mighty—even all-important—notion of personal liberty in the equation quite dogmatically, and before considering the reality of that the unborn child is his or her own human being. I firmly believe that if many pro-choicers had first examined the question of personhood of the unborn child to unequivocal satisfaction, they would never have made it to the (suddenly, to them) clearly barbaric idea that abortion is a woman's right. Anyway, the point is that the argument, “I would never have an abortion myself, or encourage someone to do so, but I also believe in a woman's right to choose with regard to her own body,” is circular as well; it relies upon the arbitrary assumption that an unborn child is not a person, and is merely a clump of flesh (or other such euphemism) attached to a woman. Obviously, the assumption made in this circular reasoning is significantly more dangerous than that made by pro-lifers when they say “Human embryos are human beings because they are beings that are human.” (In my opinion, it isn't even circular, in nature; if we use classic scientific definitions, and avoid semantic shenanigans, the statement is merely an elementary deduction by logic.) But take a look at them; whereas this pro-life argument (if you allow that it is indeed circular) makes assumptions that could adversely affect the quality of a sovereign, experienced woman's life, the pro-choice argument makes assumptions that could outright end—often violently so—an innocent, highly dependent person's life. Unconvinced? I can imagine that there are those who would object to my attempt at objectively illustrating the humanness or personhood of an unborn child, at any stage of development. To a certain extent, I believe that some of these objections might possibly be sincere ones, as opposed to concocted obfuscating quibbles with semantics. To such individuals, I pronounce that the burden of proof that an unborn child (embryo, fetus, blastocyst, zygote—whatever you call him or her, at whatever stage of development) is not a human being, rests heavily on your shoulders. How have you chosen to define a human being? When does a human life actually begin? I can virtually guarantee that any answer you give will be necessarily subjective, and frighteningly arbitrary. Even the most reasonable-appearing criteria for humanness are necessarily dangerously uninformed; and they cannot stand up to scrutiny. Let me present a few common examples: “It is not a human without a (fully?) functioning (or developed) heart/brain/lungs/(other organ).” This seems reasonable enough. However, on top of the fact that these are arbitrary criteria, this would obviously add the brain-damaged, mentally retarded and habitual druggies to the list of non-humans. Many more would take exception to referring to the dead as non-human, which this logic would also dictate. Plus, the same logic would also eliminate all cardiac arrest sufferers, underdeveloped newborns and appendectomy patients (like me) from the rolls of humanity. “It's obviously not a human without basic physical attributes like arms, legs, eyes, and so on.” True, one looks at an early embryo and fails to see the attributes classically considered innate to humanness. He or she obviously lacks many superficial similarities to the conceptual human. However, using this logic would force us down a road that refuses to acknowledge people born with birth defects, amputees and many blind people, as human beings. “It's not a human if it cannot think properly or make decisions on its own.” As usual, we must first invoke the AC (arbitrary criteria) quotient. Widely accepted members of the human race from infants to autistics to sufferers of anxiety disorders suddenly drop off the list, by this logic. “An embryo/fetus cannot survive on its own” and/or “It's more parasite than human being (no, I did not make this up; it is a very common claim).” Obviously, we get back into the myriad undisputed members of humanity like geriatrics, infants and invalids, stripping them of their humanness. True, these members of our highly developed race are not physically attached to those on whom they depend. However, that is hardly a legitimate distinction for justifying the murder of the unborn. For one thing, the ability of a fetus to survive outside the womb has always depended on medical technology. Using the same criterion 200 years ago, it would've been permissible to kill babies as they actually emerged from the birth canal (not to say this isn't legal now—it is; it is almost universally frowned upon—even by pro-choicers). By this logic, this invented “window of morality” will slowly shrink from several months back in the 19th century to perhaps a only a few weeks in the foreseeable future. The inherent logic would indicate the stunning notion that pro-choicers are allowing their moral code to be dictated by technological achievement. Also, I can apply equally absurd proclamations to your “it's connected to me” or “it's part of my body” argument to illustrate the ludicrousness of your point; would my sewing you to my belly, then sucking your brains out with a turkey baster, strike you as at all problematic? Perhaps worse is the implication that the less independent or healthy or viable a person, the less they deserve to live—or the less they deserve their status as a human. Are you willing to proclaim that the more vulnerable a being, the less reason they have to live? This logic would dictate that the most physically powerful or adept humans are more human than others. It would follow that women are less human than men. Should the developmental age at which abortions are permitted be later for girls because theirs is the weaker sex? On top of this, you're choosing a highly vivparocentric perspective of motherhood and responsibility. A fertilized egg is an almost perfect analog to the mother's womb. In the case of oviparous animals, their young develop in the protective environment of individual, external wombs. Still, throughout this stage of the developing life, the mother, it can be argued, is “connected” by an unseen “umbilical cord” (perhaps instinct) and is essentially immobilized until the “birth” of their offspring. Most folks would have a problem with destroying a cache of eggs—perhaps those of the California Condor or the Bald Eagle—on moral grounds. Likewise, it would be considered unnaturally abhorrent were the mother of these developing young to abandon her progeny, let alone suddenly take to destroying them violently. Finally, we are forced to ask whether the embryo developing inside a snake's egg is somehow less of a snake than it would be were it developing vivparously (inside a snake). The answer is clearly “no.” That the animal is being carried around by the mother has no bearing on its status as a discreet member of that species; it naturally deserves the same distinction as an animal not being carried around by the mother. Thus, the same alarming logic that calls the baby a parasite would permit that if there's a delay in cutting the cord (they really want to wait for dad to do it) mom can, at any point, bash the still-attached “parasite's” brains in, as he or she sits delivering his or her first cries in mommy's arms. Sound good to you? I submit that the fact that we can't see the womb itself makes it much easier to permit the destruction—and murder—that is an abortion. A potential person? Fine, let's allow that an unborn child is merely a potential person. Hence we move to justify abortion on the grounds that because the child is not yet a person, or has not achieved such status, it would not be immoral to kill “it”. First, it is important to mention that an unborn child will, after “its” birth, become a born child; this is basic biology. Sure, complications can emerge that threaten the health of the unborn, but, barring abortive intervention, mother nature will yield either the unfortunate miscarriage of a dead human being, or the birth of a full term, fully alive child. The point is, the term “potential” can be somewhat misleading as it almost connotes multiple possibilities. The term once again falls into equivocation, as it carries the additional baggage of referring to something that does not yet exist. A medical student might be considered a potential doctor, but he could also still become a lawyer, or an accountant. Also, his “potentialness” to be a doctor neither guarantees ultimate doctorhood, nor dictates that it will be acheived with no particular effort on his part. On the contrary, even the potential doctor must take consistent, difficult and concerted action for many years before he can realize his potential. Perhaps most important, the potential doctor can decide to change to "potential something else" at any stage. Using “potential” to refer to an unborn human is particularly disingenuous because, contrary to the classical understanding of the word, the so-called “potential human” can only “become” a human. Even if you discount my claim that an unborn child is indeed a human being, an abortion does more than kill this “potential human” right now. By ending the pregnancy, you are preventing an inevitable end. You choose to kill “it” now hoping to avoid the stigma associated with murdering a human being. The problem is, you are actively preventing “it” from becoming what even you admit is a “human being”. When you call an unborn child a “potential human” and willfully kill “it”, you are accepting and admitting the quandary that the child is a human that you are preventing from developing. Otherwise, you would have no reason to trouble yourself with the question of an abortion. If “it” isn't human now, “it” won't be later on either (biology 101); so no need for an abortion. The onus is with the pro-choicer because every single instance of childbirth in the known history of mankind has illustrated that whatever is in there growing is a human. It has never shown anything else. To claim “it” isn't a human is to arbitrarily and unjustly ignore reality. The claim that “it” is a human is supported by the fact that, if no one does anything but argue the idea for 9 months, there will be a human “at the end of the tunnel” every single time***. “It” will never not be a human—ever. The less you attempt to introduce unnatural processes (like abortion) the more “it” is human. The less intervention you attempt, the more “it” is human. The less you try to change the fact that “it” is human, the more he or she is human. The more you try to talk yourself out of the humanity of “it”, the more undeniable that he or she is human. Although nothing anyone can say will change anything about “what” is growing in a woman, it often seems that pro-choicers believe that something they can say, will. As it stands, you must actively attempt to make “it” not human for “it” to even appear non-human at all. An embryo can only possibly be considered not human by a silly process of people arbitrarily assigning some other status. And you recognize, but won't necessarily admit to yourself, that the only way to truly hide “its” humanity is to prevent “it” from developing—to kill the unborn child. An Experiment: Some people want to verify the claim that the little single-celled “object” that has been created at fertilization is not a human. Using previously unavailable technology, they are able to watch every moment of the gestational period (with any necessary visual optimization), beginning at fertilization. They appoint a group of a dozen watchers, each with 4 hour shifts, overlapping every two hours. This means that there are two observers simultaneously watching at two hour intervals. Each observer is assigned a syncopated blinking schedule, to eliminate the possibility of missing something while blinking. These individuals keep to their task of watching for a period of roughly 40 weeks. At this time, the “object” inside of the woman begins its attempts to vacate the premises. A doctor supervises the process, under the still watchful eyes of the observers, after which the “object” is pronounced “a baby girl!” To the apparent shock and horror of the claimants, all observers have no choice but to attest to the fact that the same exact “object” that was first observed at a microscopic level slowly developed into is what ultimately made its way through the birth canal. The “object” never disappeared; it did not spontaneously mutate; it was not eaten and replaced by an invading human-like entity; at no point was the “object” switched out for an “actual” baby; no womb fairy was observed to arrive at implantation, or following 14 days or three weeks or at the end of the first trimester to bestow personhood upon the object with the touch of her wand; and despite the claimants' attempts to beat it out of them, they were unable to get the observers to admit to being able to identify a point at which the single-celled “object” became a human. The claimants, instead of attempting to reevaluate their perspective, chose to don their cognitive dissonance-canceling earphones and continue along their path through life. A Little Psychology I think people have trouble realizing that embryos are indeed human because the term “human” is used to describe the abstract entity that we associate with being bipedal, having opposable thumbs, being mostly hairless, etc. What people probably never recognize is that they're engaging in “stagism” (discrimination based on developmental stage). It was a similar type of bias that had people for hundreds of years literally thinking of Africans and various indigenous peoples as somehow less-than-human. Aboriginal Australians exhibit physical features that, especially to the unscientific eye, leave many of them looking alarmingly like another species that has been identified as being an ancestor to humans: Neanderthal. It is unfortunately easy in retrospect to see how people chose to use external signals to justify assigning less-than-human status to these or the peculiar-haired, dark-skinned people of Africa. To them it could easily have seemed just as elementary as it does to people who think it's elementary that an embryo isn't human. Much how all Africans and Australian aborigines probably looked “the same” to Anglos of the past, all embryos look “the same” to people now. Obviously the appearance of someone/thing is insufficient for determining personhood. No one seems to dispute that—except in the case of embryos. Science's answers Fortunately, we have science that can help nullify stagist bias. As mentioned before, the tool is DNA. An embryo has only human DNA and has only his or her own unique DNA within the realm of human DNA. As has already been discussed, nothing human will ever contain anything other than human DNA, nor will anything other than humankind have anything but its respective DNA. And as you read previously, that the DNA of something removed from a human is identical to that of the human itself, does not qualify it as a human being; it's indeed human in nature, because of its DNA, but is not itself a human being. Fertilization is the launchpad Why do I so doggedly adhere to fertilization as the starting point of human life? I'll give you a hint: it is not arbitrary, as it is on the pro-choice side; I didn't pull it from my butt. Perhaps O'Rahilly can explain it for me. He calls fertilization “a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte . . . [D]evelopment is a continuous rather than a saltatory process, and hence the selection of prenatal events would seem to be largely arbitrary. (p. 8)” To quote him once more, “just as postnatal age begins at birth, prenatal age begins at fertilization. (p. 88)” An unborn child is an unborn child, from moment one. Conundra, loopholes and hypocrisy Meat tenderizer: A loophole story Let's pretend that a law was enacted that permitted terminating the life of anyone who has asleep for at least 48 consecutive hours. The law had been sanctioned by the voice of the people; they agreed that such a lengthy respite was inhuman. The rule was, “after 48 hours of sleep, a person is no longer considered a human being.” Mind you, the populace was still repulsed by the idea of murder, and generally was against taking a life in most other circumstances. You have an annoying live-in cousin and you have found yourself jestingly wishing he was dead on occasion. One night, you find him asleep in front of the TV, drooling. His belly is exposed, rising and falling with his wheezy gasps and snores. You creep slowly toward him, intent on waking him in the manner most likely to cause him to wet himself, when an idea pops into your head: “What if he were to stay asleep for the next two consecutive days? I could certainly get away with more than a little prank.” No, you won't murder him according to the classical understanding; everyone knows it's wrong to kill someone when they're awake and alert, but no one questions the same act if they have slept the requisite number of hours. You resolve to prevent him from awaking. Your first step is to apply a strong dose of chloroform to his nose. He sniffles, and possibly grunts—you aren't absolutely sure—so you tell yourself, “Alright, I'll have to start counting the hours from right now, just to be safe.” You proceed to inject—at regular intervals—a powerful sleeping agent to keep him knocked out. The 48 hours pass without incident and, before witnesses, you introduce your log of the cousin's sleep marathon. It “checks out” in their eyes, and you announce your intent to bash his brains in. The witnesses shrug and request a front row seat. Retrieving a meat mallet from the kitchen cupboard, you stand over his sleeping body. You lift the heavy tool over your head and, with a powerful downward plunge, drive it squarely into his left temple, causing a deep indentation and likely killing him instantly. Just in case, you follow with a half-dozen more shots to his pulping head. Allowing for the (what I see as) twisted logic of calling an unborn child a “potential human,” this story exemplifies the rationalization necessary to actually commit/assent to the abortion. In the horrific (albeit not too far from reality) society I describe above, everyone seems to agree that murder is wrong. Even killing a healthy, vivacious person just because they aren't currently awake is considered abominable. Your actions, especially as far as the authorities understood them, were technically OK, even being considered moral by society. Still, even within this horrific framework, there is something about what you actually did that even such a bankrupt society would condemn. You had to dehumanize your cousin by preventing him from waking up. Without your direct and malicious intervention to impede the natural process of awakening, he would have risen as usual, and retained his “human being” status. In other words, your preventing him from waking effectively dehumanized him. While technically, few would discount that according to the accepted definition, the cousin was not a “human being” when you killed him, few if any would consider your actions to be moral, were they to realize that without your intervention, be would be a human being today—alive and well. It's just another loophole. Forcing brain death? In your world of morality, perhaps you are in favor of euthanasia; if someone is legally determined to be brain dead, you reason, it is acceptable to “pull the plug.” Does this mean it's OK to willfully attempt to cause brain damage, and then pull the plug? If you justify abortion by seeing an unborn child as a “potential human,” your system of morality should also accept this idea. The capital punishment conundrum I find it interesting that pro-choiceness and opposition to capital punishment generally go hand-in-hand. My experience has been that many of the loudest voices in the death penalty abolition movement are actually opposed to state-sponsored killing under any circumstances. They (your Sean Penn, Ed Asner, Susan Sarandon ilk) jump on the West Memphis Three or Mumia Abu Jamal bandwagon, demanding a new trial, (even outright release; reference the slogans: “Free Mumia” and “Free The West Memphis Three”) when they actually couldn't care less about the parties' guilt. They are morally opposed to capital punishment, period. They're also pro-choice. The most common claims for their stance: The prosecution process does not work; it favors the wealthy and the white. Most importantly, people can be and are wrongly convicted. Men are tried and, despite a prohibitive automatic appeals process, and years upon years on death row, the possibility still exists that a man will be wrongly executed. In other words, if there's even a chance that the wrong man will lose his life—even in the rare, isolated instance—the death penalty should be abolished altogether. Extrapolating the principle here, it wouldn't be unreasonable to predict that nobody with the aforementioned view would ever support abortion, under any circumstance. Oops; as it somehow turns out, they're all for it. Despite being unable either to prove that an embryo/fetus/unborn child is not a living human being or even come close to the burden of proof required for a capital crime conviction, they're still all for it. Anyone else smell hypocrisy here? Conservationists Ever stop to wonder why conservationists seek protection for tadpoles when trying to save a species of frog? By pro-choice logic, as long as you kill it at the tadpole stage, it was never a frog. Go ahead and attempt to make this argument when you're prosecuted under the Endangered Species Act. Hell, shorten the argument by saying, “But abortion is legal.” Embryonic stem cell research The same proponents of embryonic stem cell research who claim that a 5-7 day old embryo is not a human—some even claim not an embryo—profess that the embryonic stem cell's value lies in its pluripotency, or ability to develop into each of the hundreds of adult cell types. Herein lies their value for cloning organs and tissues for medical use. In case the paradox here isn't as obvious as it seems to me, let me explain. In order for an embryo to be of any value to stem cell researchers, it must be developed to the point that it clearly possesses the same ecto-, endo- and mesodermal differentiation capabilities of an adult. In other words, the more it becomes unquestionably human, the better suited the embryo is to be used for harvesting and destruction. They are simultaneously lauding an embryo's practical humanness for their purposes, while denying his or her humanness in principle. Exceptional circumstances? There are those who claim the pro-life title, but insist that abortion should be permissible in certain cases, including rape, incest and threat to the life of the mother. For this I would predictably draw their attention to the principle involved. Perhaps we can draw clarity from my initial formulation: 1. Murdering an innocent human being is wrong 2. An unborn child is an innocent human being 3. Abortion murders an innocent human being (Therefore) 4. Abortion is wrong Where do rape and incest fall in this situation? Do either of these atrocious assaults contribute anything to the four truths listed above that would change their fundamental value? As I see it, we can only hope to justify these exceptions if we are willing to say: 1. Rape is worse than murder 2. Incest is worse than murder 3. Therefore, both are worse than abortion I somehow doubt that any of the above are claims that any pro-lifer would conscientiously make. I think the problem arises from an innate need to find fairness in life. Clearly it is unfair for a victim of such a traumatic, horrific event as sexual assault to become burdened with the responsibility of carrying a child, as a direct result of the assault. No one would attempt to dispute this. Unfortunately, this does not change the reality that a human being was created by the union of the attacker's and victim's gametes. The unavoidable truth of the situation necessarily follows, sadly, but distinctly. On the practical side of this idea of exceptions in assault cases, it would—as has been shown by analogous cases involving rape charges—represent another notorious loophole for pro-abortionism; as has been demonstrated by the incidence and permissibility of abortion-on-demand in America, the intent of “exceptions for assault” would be quickly bastardized to become “exceptions for anyone who is willing to claim an assault,” which itself would mean “exceptions for anyone who wants an abortion.” With regard to life-threatening pregnancies, the key is that such situations are incredibly unlikely and almost never happen—particularly in the United States, where I aim my policy-oriented darts. Whereas a half-century ago, the notion of dying in childbirth was a sad reality (while not common), medical technology now encounters few situations in which it is likely to require a decision between the life of an unborn child and its mother. However, in the rare case that the life—not mere health (this is another loophole for another discussion), but life—of the mother is at stake, abortion should be left to the discretion of the patients' doctor, but according to strict guidelines, under precisely aimed protocols. Because of the rarity of such situations, every doctor should be held to account for his actions, and should be discouraged—through fear of reprisals—from acting as an abortion shill. If you're in favor of allowing exceptions because you're looking at “fairness,” first, please quit calling yourself pro-life already and second, consider the level of fairness for the child whose mom (or her loved ones) wants to kill him to help herself heal. If you call yourself pro-life, please do be pro-life. Pro-life . . . really? In a January 2000 presidential debate, Alan Keyes took John McCain to task for his essentially pro-choice version of pro-life. McCain had previously stated that if his daughter was seeking an abortion, he would call a family conference to discuss it, but the choice would ultimately be hers. Keyes responded: “I've got to admit I think that that displayed a profound lack of understanding of the basic issue of principle involved in abortion. After all, if your daughter came to you and said she was contemplating killing her grandmother for the inheritance, you wouldn't say, "let's have a family conference." You'd look at her and say . . . 'no', because that is morally wrong.” It was amusing to listen to McCain's attempt to muddle the issue with the typical “how dare you bring my daughter into this” technique; it was disconcerting to realize how pro-choice many so-called pro-lifers really are. Please, consider your own perspective. If you find yourself in McCain's camp, or in that of the exceptions-for-assault ilk, I request sincerely: Either fix your viewpoint, or join the pro-choice fiesta—one can't have it both ways. In determining your perspective on the abortion issue, I recommend asking yourself what you would say to a daughter who was contemplating killing your mother for her inheritance. Next, use your answer to help determine your stance on abortion. -------------------- * Incest/rape are both “red herrings” as they deceptively misdirect the argument; because the percentage of abortions performed following such assaults is virtually nil, it's a practical waste of resources to even address. Its real purpose is to bury the principle that abortion is murder deeply within the discussion. Since ~98%+ of abortions are for reasons other than rape and incest, it represents a mere diversion tactic. However, it is nevertheless covered above. ** All emphasis in quotations has been added by me, unless otherwise specified. *** Yes, even if it is a dead one. And yes, miscarriages occur at stages throughout pregnancy, but for some reason no one ever takes solace by saying “Well, at least it wasn't an actual person—just a mass of cells” when an unborn child dies.