by John Russell Turner, June 4, 2019
There are essentially two basic questions in the abortion debate, and one basic premise:
Question One, "when does human life begin?" can be easily answered. It begins at the moment of conception, that is, at the moment when the sperm fertilizes the egg and cell division begins.
Question Two: "when do human rights begin?" can be easily answered, as well. Human rights begin at the moment a human being is conceived, again, at conception. Why? Because we are human. What are human rights? The right to live, which in this context means the right not to be killed, to continue on with his or her development until natural death occurs. Some would argue for other rights, but for the purposes of this argument, let's stick to the most fundamental of rights, the right to live, because without this right, no other rights can exist.
Basic premise: it is morally wrong to kill other people for any reason other than self-defense.
So why do so many people claim that human life does not begin until some other point besides fertilization (usually when the baby leaves the mother's body)? They probably believe that because the baby is dependent upon the mother's body for life, that negates the individuality of the baby, whom they refer to by alternative names like fetus, blastocyst, and embryo. While these are indeed the scientific words used for various stages of human growth (as are not-so-scientific words like infant, new-born, rug rat, toddler, tween, teen-ager, adult, senior citizen, et al), in the abortion debate they are used instead of the words "baby", or even "child", because that would humanize them, and make the reality obvious: that abortion is murder. The primary reason people claim that human life does not begin until the "fetus" is born is to deceive themselves into thinking what they are doing is not evil.
But why can it not be said that human life/human rights begin at birth, and so, give women the guiltless option of not carrying their clump of tissue to term? A rose flower is not a rose until it blooms? Snip the buds off a developing rose, and you will have no rose flowers, ever. But a fetus, like a rose bud, is only a potential, not an actuality? Human fetuses and roses are not the same thing, and not morally equivalent; but the point here is only that while it is true that an embryo is potential: a potential newborn, toddler, teen-ager or astronaut, at the point in time it is aborted, it is a human being at a specific stage in development. A rose bud is still a rose, although it hasn't finished with it's development. Just like a human fetus. So if you can say human life/human rights begin at birth only, you could also say, using the same reasoning, that it begins at any other point in it's development. It would be like saying human rights/human life doesn't begin until the walking, talking clump of cells leaves home and strikes out on it's own. Or until any random point in time is reached. A very famous, well respected writer, Ayn Rand, once said that because a fetus is merely potential human life, it's OK to abort it. Rand was wrong on this one: a fetus is more than a "potential", it is a distinct individual, a living human organism merely early in it's life development/cycle. An "actual" life apparently begins when the fetus crosses the magical path of the birth canal. Or when it starts paying it's own way in the world. Before fertilization, there was potential in every egg and in every sperm cell. We are all potential: what we can become is limited only by our abilities. So that is why any definition of when human rights/human life begins other than at conception, is self-serving. For example, many women feel guilt at even considering abortion, no matter if it would solve a lot of their discomfort and inconvenience. Tell that same woman that it's just a lump of tissue, that life does not begin until birth, and maybe she'll feel less guilty, or not guilty at all.
Does that solve the abortion issue once and for all? No. Because abortion is not the real issue. The existence of God, and individual belief and obedience to God is the real issue. Because if there is no God, then the only thing that can restrict our behaviors is human law. If there is no God, we are gods, or at least, we can play God. We can do what we want, which horribly includes murdering children as a form of birth control, for the sake of having casual sex without consequences. Which also includes murdering literally millions of serfs in Soviet Russia, Jews in Nazi Germany, and political dissenters in Maoist China. Do you doubt this? Just look closely, if you can, at what's going on now in America. State legislatures have made abortion legal all the way to a point just prior to birth. Look at the procedures required to successfully terminate any pregnancy; the ones that happen later on are usually inhumanly brutal. But then, not all of us are really human, are we? Because many people know damn well how full of crap they are on this issue; they know that abortion is murder, but they do not care. Because No God.
