I suppose if Jonathan didn't ask me to write on this one I know I would've gotten around to it eventually, but this is a note for everyone else, I do take requests.
There is one single issue with the topic of abortion, through reading a couple books and actually talking to people about the topic I have yet to find more than one real question. "What is the unborn?” It seems so simple but that is all there is to it. My personal stance on the subject is abortion for other than to save the mother's life should be illegal, counted as murder because I believe it to be murder. The only circumstance I would agree abortion is the better situation is with tubal pregnancies. This is very life threatening for both the mother and the child. From my understanding the best situation that can happen is that the baby would have to be born very prematurely and it is still a very risky procedure for both the mother and child. I hold the position I do because I do not believe in killing innocent people, since I want to save lives holding a position which forces someone into a situation where their life is in direct danger is unreasonable. In addition, scripture clearly defines murder is sin and I am hard-pressed to find a Christian opposed to the saving of innocent lives. Some people will attempt to sight an obscure passage talking about Babylon along the lines of "Happy is he who tramples infants". I also want to point out that I abhor organizations such as the Army of God, which condones and encourages attacking abortion clinics and personnel. Now let's get on with it, the "why" I believe what I believe?
The physical arguments people use to support abortion actually have nothing to do with anything except the classification of the unborn. People will say the babies are too expensive, unwanted, will be abused, or any other reason they can come up with, those sugarcoat the real issue. Is the unborn a human being that should be protected under the Constitution of the United States or is it a lump of flesh a conglomeration of cells which can be discarded like waste?
For each argument for abortion one must ask “would the same argument be a valid argument to kill a toddler?” Such as being expensive, children are very expensive, does that mean we can kill them when they cost too much? There are millions of unwanted homeless people in United States; does that mean we can start killing them? Sadly there are thousands of abused children every year, since they are at a much higher risk to have a self destructive life should we kill them now and save the tax dollars? Hopefully you said "no" to each question, and the answer to “Why not?” is because they all are human beings.
So why do these arguments appear to work with abortion? We have missed the point, and unless we approach the unborn as human beings then we can never win the fight for life. There are four differences between myself and a developing child inside a pregnant woman; these differences vary in degree and intensity however I do not believe any of these differences are reason enough to kill a person. The differences are: size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency.
Size, although being of greater or lesser size can have its advantages throughout life our size does not define us as human beings. If we want to peruse the idea that size might define us as people then should we start removing rights from people under say 4’ 10”? In addition should people 6’4” and taller be given special rights for being "more human" than the majority of the country’s population? Even more, the very few 7’plus people, should we elevate them to a semi-god like status for being among the "most human" specimens in the world? I hope you said "no" to all these because the thought that a person's size defines them as a person is ridiculous. Yet, how many of us have heard people exclaim that since an embryo is the size of the tip of a pencil it can't be human? Same issue different degree. Unless I can start killing people shorter than me, then we cannot accept the idea that a fetus’ size has any bearing on its humanity.
Level of development, this is a real fun one, a person's level of development should not have any bearing their humanity. Did you know that the human brain is not fully developed until somewhere in our 40's? Anyone with an high school education should know as children grow in adolescence and puberty their reproductive systems are developing, thus before then those systems were not developed. Here are some proposals, we should measure brainwave activity because it denotes mental development and the people who score the highest will be the most human! Body builders have perhaps the most developed muscles in the world, so they must be more human than those of us that have not taken to such a lifestyle. Then the bad news, people with down syndrome and other mental disabilities would be declared less human than people who have developed normally.
How a person has developed or develops themselves has any bearing on if they are human or not. How many of us have heard people argue that because a fetus does not have a developed nervous system it is not human? What does not having certain abilities people get, have anything to do with us being human or not? Whatever a fetus has not yet developed, if we leave it alone it will develop. Not having a fully developed system, body part, or whatever physical feature does not determine our humanity.
Speaking of development because some people have attempted to argue “development does make us more human”, did you know the full title to Charles Darwin book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races In the Struggle For Life". At that time the argument was if black people were human or not. Charles Darwin believed that because women’s’ brains were about the same size as an ape's brain they should be held at the same level, as for the exceptional woman that did show above average intelligence they should be ignored, that is where you get when you determine humanity on development.
Environment, where I am has no effect on what I am. I started this morning rolling out of bed to get ready for PT. While I traveled from my room did I ever stop being me? Have I been the same person since I woke up, walked all over post and returned to my desk? Maybe that doesn't work because all that was a short distance, when I got off the plane after arriving in Germany was I a different person? That can be an issue of philosophy which I will get to, but physically was I a different person? If these travels have not changed who or what I am how on earth does a journey through the birth canal change a fetus many people believe to be non-human into a valued baby to love, hold, and cherish? Was there a special stamp the doctor stamped making the child a human or was it human before it left the womb? We all travel throughout the day, even as I have been writing this I am sure I have scooted around more than a foot, and I am still the same person with the same thoughts.
Degree of Dependency, I do not believe because a fetus is dependent on its mother to live disqualify it from being a human being. People will argue it is not viable, well neither is a toddler, and from people I know even as adults they still are not viable to live on their own. I tend to think that those that are more dependant are more valued, not less. If being dependant on something or someone to live then, are people with pacemakers or dialysis no longer human? The pro-choice line of thinking would say yes. One example is Peter Singer, he is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and 2004 Australian Humanist of the Year. He argues parents should have the option to kill their newborn up to a month after it is born because it is not yet viable. In addition, he believes any child born with defects should be killed on the spot for the overall benefit of the parents and society. If viability determines humanity then Peter Singer isn't proposing anything too harsh, but if it doesn't well the first child Peter Singer attempts to kill, he would promptly be charged with attempted murder.
Is humanity something that can be gained or lost? If a person looses all viability while in a coma are they still a human being? Are they still a person? Some philosophies would say "no", to them I ask “Then what are they and how did they transmute into something that is no longer human?” When people talk about the conditions and attributes that makes us human it is usually by tasks or abilities. We are human because of what we have the capacity to do not what we can actually perform. If we are determined valuable by how well we can do math, run, or lift weights then many animals are more human than a lot of humans. Do we look at the whole package or certain aspects to determine if we are human or not?
I was at the gym watching a nature program the other day and they were comparing to how certain animals are more athletic and superior to humans at certain events. It was using examples like penguins can swim faster, cheetahs can run faster, and hippos can hold their breath longer to claim humans are inferior. I was rather appalled, I would like to see a penguin, cheetah, or Hippo swim 3 miles, ride a bike for 20 miles, and run 6 miles before I concede any of them to be more athletically inclined than humans are. Animals were created for an environment and they are very well suited for where they live.
How does someone who thinks differently than I do justify that an unborn child is not human? The interesting thing about the differences I listed, humanity was being spoken of as a measureable thing. I used phrases like "more human" and "less human", we use descriptions of more or less to determine amounts, not states. If I have more water that concerns quantity not quality. Humanity is a thing we either are or are not, this idea is much easier to accept if you happen to be a creationist, because the teachings of evolution follows that humans developed to become human. You can trace the same thinking found in evolution as communism, racism, fascism, and other social ideologies that we tend to think are wrong. When I speak of being human it involves a mind and body so far I‘ve only approached the body aspect.
If the unborn is not human what is it and when does it become human? Earnst Haeckel the one who made the comparative embryos in the 1860's introduced the idea that humans develop similarly to all other animals. He might be given credit for the belief somewhere in development we "become" human. By the way in 1875 he was found guilty of lying by the college he taught in, yet the chart and his teaching is still used today. Something to remember, those who argue the fetus/embryo is not human must provide a valid answer for what it is, if they claim it is not human the burden of proof is on them to explain what it is. I have yet to see, hear or read about two humans producing anything other than human. Cats make cats, dogs make dogs, and it goes the same way for everything. Two creatures of the same kind produce after their own kind. Scientifically we determine what things are by looking at what the parents are.
No comments:
Post a Comment