Answering Pro-Abortion Objection on the Nature of a Fetus

Restating My Thesis:

Premise 1:  All acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.  

Premise 2:  Abortion is an act that intentionally takes the life of an innocent, human person.  

Conclusion:  Therefore, abortion is an immoral act and should be illegal.

This is a valid argument.  

Which means, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true.  For more on validity and arguments go here.  For a further treatment of my thesis go here.  

Objections to my thesis tend to fall into one of the following:

• The objection on the being of the fetus.
• Objections from choice, privacy, and rights.
• Objections from the lesser evil.
• Objections concerning endangering the mother's life or women's health.
• The objection base on the Violinist Argument.
• The objection that I should not shove my morality down someone else's throat.  a.k.a. "You cannot legislate morality."

In this post I address the first objection.  I'll address the other objections in other posts.

Objections on the Nature of a Fetus:

            This first set of objections deals with my second premise directly.  Some say that a fetus is not alive because it is not breathing and feeding on its own.  It is not out and about on its own.  If the fetus actively depends on another for life, then it cannot be alive on its own, and if it is not alive on its own, then it is truly not alive.  If it is truly not alive, then how can you kill it?  Or, so what if you do kill it?

This objection says the fetus is more parasitic in nature than it is human.  We do not see humans going around feeding off of other humans and if we did we would certainly put a stop to it immediately.  At least in early stages of development the fetus is not viable; it cannot live on its own.  The pro-abortionist asks what is wrong with stopping the development of a being (or life of a fetus) if it cannot naturally live on its own.

            In early stages of development the fetus may not look too different than the embryos of other animals.  The central nervous system does not begin to develop until after the first month of gestation.  How can it be human without a central nervous system?  Certainly abortions prior to this should be widely acceptable.  Until a central nervous system is functioning the fetus is merely a group of cells – “a bunch of goo” as some have said.  How can removing a mere blob of cells be murder?  It is certainly not a person.

Answering the Objection:

I have demonstrated in my defense that the fetus can be nothing but human.  Humans give birth to humans and only humans.  If a human baby comes out of a woman’s womb then it must be human inside the mother’s womb.  A fetus does not somehow change species or nature during birth.  If someone says this fetus is not human, then the burden of proof is on them to prove exactly what it is and how it is not human.  If they cannot, then it is a grave error to assume their position and end an innocent life as a result.

This is a sort of plea from ignorance on their part.  They reason that if we are not sure what it is we are aborting, then what harm is there?  But, it is strange they do not seem to be too interested in being certain what it is they are aborting.  To them ignorance is bliss.  If a son came up behind his mother and asked, “Mommy, may I throw this away?”   The mother must turn around and determine exactly of what he is speaking.  It would certainly be foolish to grant blind approval.

This also goes for the objection that the fetus is not alive.  Here too I have demonstrated that the fetus is growing, contains unique genetic material, and is developing into a more specifically complex organism.  If these are not indications of a living being, then the burden of proof is on those in favor of abortion to show exactly how such organism is not alive.  Again, conjecture, opinion, or anything short of proof will not suffice in a matter of life & death.

I have given reasoned, scientific arguments that the fetus inside a woman’s body is a living, human being.  If the fetus is not a person or does not possess "personhood," then the burden of proof is on the pro-abortionists to show exactly when “personhood” is obtained, if it is at some time other than when a forty-six chromosomal, human zygote begins developing.  Yet, they continually fall short of this in their dogmatic claims.[1]
  
Is “personhood” based on consciousness alone?  Certainly not.  If it is, then why is it not legal to kill someone so high on heroin that they are oblivious to the world?  It is illegal to kill such a person because they are a living, human being – a person – and consciousness has nothing to do with the matter.

Nature is From the Beginning:

Some argue that an acorn is not an oak tree, but only potentially an oak tree: likewise a fetus is not human (or not fully human) but is only potentially human.  This argument does not hold.  An acorn does not have the potential to become an oak tree – it is an oak tree at the beginning stages of development.  An acorn does not have the potential to become anything other than an oak tree because “oak-ness” is a part of the acorn’s essence.  An acorn will emerge from the ground as a sprout, then grow some more to be a sapling, then grow more to be a larger tree, and will continue to grow until its growth is altered by outside forces; but it is always an oak.

Likewise, a fetus is not a potential human – it is human.  A fetus has no potential to become anything other than a human because “human-ness” is a part of the fetus’ essence.  A fetus will emerge from the womb as a baby, and then grow more to be a toddler, then more to be an adolescent, then to a young adult and so on.  This growth will continue in a natural manner unless it is altered by some outside force; but this fetus is always a human.  Abortion would definitely be such an outside force that terminates its growth in an unnatural way.

"But, It Cannot Live On Its Own."

True, the fetus cannot survive on its own apart from the mother, but that does not make it parasitic, nor is the fetus some form of cannibal.  A parasite attaches itself with its teeth or hook-like structures because the host will naturally try to repel it.  In a pregnancy the human zygote develops into a blastocyst which does attach to the uterine wall, but then the woman’s body welcomes the embryo by developing ways to accommodate the fetus and its development in a natural way.  These changes in the mother’s body are not only in the uterus and for the fetal stage of development, but also for the days following birth.  
During pregnancy estrogen and progesterone levels increase.  These hormones do not come from the fetus, but from the mother.  The result is a growth of the mammary glands.  Following birth the mother’s milk is rich in nutrients beneficial to the baby.[2]  These processes are natural and regular.  The woman’s body goes through changes to sustain the pregnancy and the child for months afterwards.  The woman’s body goes through changes naturally in order to continue the pregnancy.  The woman’s body naturally changes to welcome the fetus and to help it survive.  Pregnancy and birth are the natural life sustaining processes of the body.  Abortion is the unnatural, life ending actions against the baby’s body and a life altering action against the mother’s body.

Even though a fetus cannot survive on its own, that is no justification for abortion.  It is accurate to say that no babies or toddlers can survive on their own either, but that does not justify killing them either.  Many adolescents, adults, and elderly people cannot survive solely on their own, but we do not use that as a reason to kill them if they become a burden to us.  We certainly would not condone the killing of welfare recipients just because they need assistance from others and cannot “make it on their own.”  Astronauts cannot survive on their own outside the International Space Station, but that's no reason to kill them in space.  

So, if not being able to make it on their own is not a justification for killing those outside of the womb, why do some try to make it a justification for killing those inside the womb?  

The pro-abortionist reasoning is severely flawed.

---

[1]  Granted, both sides of the abortion debate are often dogmatic.  Hopefully my arguments will help both sides be less dogmatic and become more analytical & logical.

[2] Starr, Cecie and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 5^th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1989) p 524.

Abortion Should Be Illegal: Logic, Reason, and Science Agree

Introduction

One prevalent and heated subject is the legalization of abortion.  

For the most part, those interested in the debate have sided in one of two camps: pro-choice or pro-life.  

The former often believes that women should be permitted to get an abortion at any time for any reason and the latter thinks abortion should be illegal.  Although many pro-choice advocates say they are in favor of abortion only in cases such as incest or rape, they concede to the strong pro-choice camp by letting abortion on demand be legal.  

Both sides have presented several arguments for their position.  In spite of all the arguments on both sides, it comes down to this:

If the unborn is not a human person, then no justification for abortion is necessary; however, if the unborn is a human person, then no justification for abortion is adequate.

My thesis is:  All acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.  Abortion is an act that intentionally takes the life of an innocent, human person.  Therefore, abortion is an immoral act and should be illegal.

This is a valid argument.   Valid meaning that if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessary and absolutely must be true.

Defense of Thesis

            The defense of my thesis rests on the second premise.  It is safe to say that every right-minded person would agree with the major premise; that all acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.  Both sides of the abortion debate would likely agree with this, so I will concentrate the arguments in defense of the second premise.  My argument rests on the premise that the fetus inside a woman is a living, human person.  It is obviously innocent and defenseless.  The crux of my argument is the fetus is a living person.

Taking Innocent Life Is Universally Condemned

            Not only is it universally condemned to take an innocent human life, but a culture that practices such is practically unthinkable.  Who can imagine a culture where any person at any time may take the life of any other individual for any reason?  It is unthinkable that such a society could possibly exist – not because of “the herd is stronger than the individual” survival instinct – but because of the moral code that is written on our hearts.  Granted there have been cases of despots, kings, queens, and other tyrants that committed such murders (even mass murders), but even in those cases one of two things can be found.  First, the rest of that society did not approve of such actions, but remained helpless or was silent because of terror or the temporary inability to thwart it.  Or second, classification of humanness was the issue and not the approval of murder.  This second case needs a little more explanation.

What I mean in this second case is that even though it may appear that most of that society approved of murder at any given time, it is not really the case.  For instance, consider Nazi Germany’s actions towards Jews and some slave owners towards slaves.  In these situations it was morally wrong and illegal to kill an innocent human being.  A Nazi could not kill any person he wished and a slave owner was not permitted by law to kill his neighbor (or even his neighbor’s slave) out of convenience.  A Jew was not considered a full human being to a Nazi; or at the most, a significantly inferior human.  To the slave owner, slaves were not human employees; they were only human-like property.[1]  Even in extreme cases of human brutality it was not a matter that murder was condoned, it was a matter of what and who is human.

Is a fetus a human being? 

All creatures naturally spawn other creatures only of their same kind.  Dogs do not naturally give birth to kittens, fish, or oak trees; dogs produce only other dogs.  Acorns do not sprout roses – only oak trees.  Likewise, humans give birth only to humans.  Since humans give birth only to humans, the fetus in a woman’s womb can be nothing other than human.  Location does not change essence.  Furthermore, the fetus must be alive because he or she is growing and developing into a more complex being.  This development is not random or chaotic like rust or a tumor; it is specific and predictable in nearly every instance.  This development is also not merely getting larger as in the formation of crystals nor is it merely more widespread like a virus.  This growth is producing a more complex individual being with its own organs, reflexes, immune system, brain waves, and unique DNA.

When does this development become human?  It is human at the first of its becoming.  It does not develop into a human.  It is human and that is why it develops.  Granted not everything that develops is human, but I have already dealt with the issue of the humanity of the fetus.  The point I make here is that the fetus is human from the very first moment of development.  A college biology book says it this way:

Sexual reproduction begins with meiosis and proceeds through the formation of gametes.  It ends at fertilization, when the sperm nucleus and egg nucleus fuse in the first cell of the new individual (the zygote).  A zygote grows into a multi-celled adult by way of mitosis, which faithfully maintains the chromosome number characteristic of the species, division after division.^[2]

Notice that the reproduction ends at fertilization and a new individual life begins.  From the zygote on there is a separate human life.

Humans – even single-celled humans – have forty-six chromosomes.  This is an essential characteristic of being human.  Since the fetus is unique and has a different genetic code from the mother, he or she is a different human being separate from the mother.  Abortion then is not simply a matter of choice with a mother’s body because the abortion affects a human being other than the mother.  This other human being is a unique person that has some similarities to the mother, and some to the father, but is a different human being as a whole.

Abortion is an act that intentionally takes away the life of a human being that has committed no crime whatsoever.  These types of acts are met with universal condemnation and, therefore, abortion should be illegal everywhere.  Since the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.

Objections To Thesis:

            Objections to my thesis are almost entirely towards my second premise.  Anyone who objects to my first premise is a person who is rejected outright by the rest of humanity.  It is my premise that abortion is an intentional act of taking an innocent human that faces the objections.  Some might even agree with both of my premises, but reject the conclusion due to some special cases.  My syllogism, however, is valid.  If my premises are true, then my conclusion is necessarily true.  There should be no further argument if both premises are true, yet there is.  I have grouped objections to my argument into five classes.  Every argument I have heard against my thesis so far can be grouped into one of these.

I will answer answer these objections in blog posts soon to follow:

• The objection on the being of the fetus.
• Objections from choice, privacy, and rights.
• Objections from the lesser evil.
• Objections concerning endangering the mother's life or women's health.
• The objection base on the Violinist Argument.
• The objection that I should not shove my morality down someone else's throat.  a.k.a. "You cannot legislate morality."

I cannot be silent any longer.

---

[1] This was even upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case.

[2] Starr, Cecie and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 5^th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1989) 140 – 141.

Three fundamental rules of logic must be followed for any rational discussion to take place. They are most basic; other rules of logic necessarily follow from these three. Furthermore, if any of these three fundamental rules are broken, the statements or arguments associated with this violation must be false.


1.) Law of Non-contradiction:


A statement and its negation cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Examples of statements and their negation are below.
Original: "I am typing on a computer."
Negation: "I am not typing on a computer."
I may be typing on a typewriter, or I may not be typing at all.
Original: "It is raining outside (where I live)."
Negation: "It is not raining outside (where I live)."
The parenthetical statement is not necessary. Common sense shows that it is most certainly raining somewhere.
Common sense also lets us know that the original statement applies only at the time the statement is made; we would not assume the original statement is to be considered true at all times.
Light rain, drizzle, downpour? I don't care about the details in this article. Let's not be picky.
Original: "2 + 3 = 5"
Negation: "Two plus three does not equal 5."
The original statement implies normal base-10 arithmetic.
There's no need to try to be clever and talk about the possibility of other bases, modular arithmetic, or anything else not clearly indicated.


2.) Law of Excluded Middle:


Either a statement or its negation must be true; there is no third option.
Either "2 + 3 equals 5" or "2 + 3 does not equal 5."
There is no other possibility.
Notice I did not say "Either 2 + 3 equals 5 or 2 + 3 equals 6."


3.) Law of Identity:


Statement X is statement X. Huh? The Law of Identity sounds redundant and useless at first. However, it is important. Moreover, it is necessary. If I make a statement about something (e.g. There is a calculator on my desk), then I am stating something about my calculator's identity. I could make many other statements about this specific calculator's identity, but why bother? Think of it this way, if no statements could be made about some thing's or some idea's identity, if it has no identity, then it would not exist, right?


Reality has specific things true about it. If it is not true, then it is not real. Right?


The Law of Identity necessarily follows from reality.


Granted, what you or I are stating may be false, but then the first law (i.e. Law of Non-contradiction) would come to our rescue; it cannot be true that there is a calculator on my desk and no calculators on my desk (at the same time and in the same sense.) The second law (i.e. Law of Excluded Middle) also comes into play; either there is a calculator on my desk or there is not a calculator on my desk. There is no third option.


I could find examples from today's headlines to further discuss these three laws, but that would take away from further blog posts. This article is small and quick. There are many places on the Internet to research these topics further.

All Thought Is Not Valid:

I thought I was going to die ...

I forget the exact words of the discussion, but it went something like this:

She: "Those people have good jobs just because they know somebody.  It's not fair." 

He:  "Yeah, you know what they say, 'It's not what you know.  It's who you know.'" 

Me:  "Well, just because you know someone at the company doesn't mean you can get a job at that company.  If that was so, then I'd be working at some great companies because I have some friends that work at great companies." 

She:  "Yeah, if you know someone working at the company, your chances of working there are much better. I tried to get a job there, but was turned down.  It's because I didn't know anybody there.  That other dude got a job there, so it's just because he knows someone working there already.  It's not fair." 

He:  "Yeah, she makes a valid point." 

Me:  "Well, no.  Actually her point is not valid." 

She:  "What?!  How dare you say my point is not valid!" 

It was about this time her eyes about popped out of her skull and the veins in her neck started bulging.  She looked like one of those mad women on The Maury Show who was just told the results of the paternity test did not go the way she was hoping.

He:  "Watch out, man."

I tried to explain what validity meant and how her point was not valid, but it was too late.  I was already labeled as insensitive and other horrible things.  Further intellectual discussion was hopeless.  I then turned my attention from teaching a miniature lesson in logic to getting ready to block punches, kicks, and wild cat scratches.

What is an Argument?

The word argument, as used in logic, means a series of statements arranged in a certain order to arrive at a conclusion.  One may think of an argument as a conclusion and the reasons for believing the conclusion.   A student studies many such arrangements of statements in a introductory course on logic.

As soon as someone asks me for the reasons why I think such-and-such is true, they are asking to hear my argument.  An argument does not necessarily mean yelling and shouting.   To many, this is exactly what it means.  However, to someone who studies mathematics, logic, or philosophy, an argument is simply the manner in which the reasons support a conclusion.

What is a Valid Argument?

Many people I have met use the word "valid" to mean whatever is being discuss is worth hearing or should be considered or respected.  They may say, "I have a valid opinion" or "he has a valid point."  (The logic students snicker).  A person's point of view may or many not be valid.  Not all thought is valid.

By definition, an argument is valid when the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.  That is, if the reasons are true, then, by the structure of the argument, the conclusion must also be true.  The logic and advanced mathematics students study these forms of arguments to justify their conclusions and statements.  An argument is said to be invalid if you cannot come to the stated conclusion based on the reasons given.  It is not saying that the conclusion is false; it is saying you cannot logically arrive at this conclusion based on the reasons given.

I will not try to summarize semesters worth of study in one blog entry.   Go to college and take rigorous courses.   Get yourself some books on introductory logic and study them on your own.

An example of a Valid Argument:

(Premise)  All acts that intentionally harm an innocent human being are immoral and should be illegal.

(Premise)  Abortion is an act that intentionally harms an innocent human being.

(Conclusion)  Therefore, abortion is immoral and should be illegal.

Whether you agree with my premises or conclusion does not matter.  This is a valid argument.  That is, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true also.  So, if the premises can be shown to be true, then rejecting the conclusion would be an irrational way of thinking.

An example of an Invalid Argument:

(Premise)  If macroevolution is true, then we would expect to see similarities between different species.

(Premise)  We do see similarities between different species.

(Conclusion)  Therefore, macroevolution is true.

This is an invalid argument.  You cannot logically arrive at this conclusion based on this reasoning.  The argument is invalid by what is called the fallacy of affirming the consequent.  This is also the fallacy used in my opening example.  This and many other fallacies are discussed in a first semester course in logic.  This being an invalid argument is not denying that macroevolution is true; it is stating that you cannot arrive at the truth of the conclusion based on the reasons given.  Sadly, so many people (including educators) use this argument to try to justify that macroevolution (single-celled animals evolving into humans) is true.

Validity vs. Truth:

"Valid" does not mean "true."  "Invalid" does not mean "false."  You can have a valid argument full of false statements.  You can also have an invalid argument full of true statements.  You can have a true conclusion from an invalid argument and you can have a false statement as a conclusion from a valid argument.  Validity deals with the structure and positioning of these statements; that's it.

Here's an example of a valid argument with false statements:

(Premise)  All men are honey badgers.
(Premise)  All honey badgers are chihuahuas.
(Conclusion)  Therefore, all men are chihuahuas.

I know this is a silly example, but, believe it or not, this is a valid argument.  That is, IF the premises were true, then the conclusion MUST also be true.   However, as is in this case, since at least one of the premises is false (in fact, both are false), then there is no logical, rational reason for accepting the conclusion.

Here's an example of an invalid argument with true statements:

(Premise)  Some fathers are accountants.
(Premise)  Some accountants are over 50 years old.
(Conclusion)  Therefore, some fathers are over 50 years old.

Each of these premises are true and the conclusion is true.  Almost everyone can prove each of these statements.  However, this argument is invalid because you cannot arrive at this conclusion (even though it is true) simply by using these premises.   That is, the reasons (premises) do not necessarily lead to this conclusion.

What is a Sound Argument?

An argument is considered to be sound if: (1) it is valid and (2) the premises are shown (or known) to be true.  So, if an argument is sound, then only an irrational person would deny the conclusion.  There are two methods for refuting someone's argument: (1) show their argument to be invalid, or (2) show at least one of their premises to be false.

Why Does It Matter?

Logic is used in all forms of thinking.  Poor logic leads to poor thinking.  Good logic leads to good thinking.  Invalid arguments are the result of sloppy thinking (or an insufficient education).  By using invalid arguments we fool ourselves and possibly mislead those to whom we are communicating into believing things that are not true or believing things for the wrong reasons.  All rational thought depends on sound reasoning.  We need to think, speak, and act using sound reason.

Bad ideas can have bad consequences.   Bad reasoning can have bad consequences.

Good ideas and sound reasoning often has good consequences.