The Elephant In The Room (SCOTUS-Pocus – The DOBBS Decision)
We continue our series on the Supreme Court DOBBS decision.
The back and forth of the abortion debate in this country (to say nothing of the rest of the world) has radicalized the ideals of so many over the years, that sometimes it’s hard to see if anyone will ever agree on how to handle the subject, or see the actual elephant in the room in this debate.
Moral Decline
Pro-life people say that all abortion is murder, with many ignoring any mitigating factors. Pro-abortion/choice people say that abortion is a “right” and tend to ignore the impact to life of the unborn child, the mother, and the father, the latter being wholly ignored as so much as a tiny factor in the decision-making process.
While it would be a noble goal in theory to have everyone acknowledge the actual life status of the unborn, it seems to be an unattainable goal on a societal level these days, mainly because the influence of religion and its moral compass and foundation has been purposely degraded over the last century or so in our society.
I can write volumes on who / what / how / why the influence of G-d (Hashem to my fellow Jews) has been systematically destroyed in not only our country, but around the world, but that would be a whole blog series for another time.
Suffice it to say for today’s thoughts, that because of the diminishing influence of godly morality in our nation, the concept of personal responsibility, particularly in terms of responsible sexual behavior if a pregnancy is undesired, is laughed at as an ancient and dead ideal.
Incontrovertible Biological Fact
But religious or not, there’s something that none of us can escape from or try to alter. It’s a fact that biological science has known and established for centuries, codified since the advent of medical technology to confirm prior medical belief. That completely unshakable fact is this:
The process of life begins at the moment when sperm fertilizes egg, forming a separate and distinct living entity.
Thus, the elephant in the room of the abortion debate, is the fact that the unborn child is actually a separate and distinct life.
In this respect, those who consider themselves pro-life are in fact on the side of biology here. Life actually does start at “conception”. Biological science has long-established that the fertilization of a female animal’s egg by a male animal’s sperm causes a chain reaction of biological process that create a life, by a predetermined biological process specific to that species.
Thus, life actually does begin at fertilization (aka “conception”) and continues in a prearranged manner unless acted on by some abnormal internal or external process. Even the terms we use for the development stages, “zygote”, “fetus”, etc., are simply scientific terms to help us define the stage at which that life is at a particular time, and such terms do not in any way imply that life doesn’t exist at any such particular stage.
Denying the Truth
The pro-abortion camp, unable to avoid the biological fact, have instead had to resort to using lies, half-truths, and misinterpretations of science in order to change and dull the public’s perception of the long-established biological facts. While surely not a complete compilation, the major claims by the pro-abortion camp to distort the perception of the facts are following.
Deny Biological Fact
Some will just straight-out deny biology and refuse to believe that the moment of conception is actually the beginning of life, but a “clump of cells” that bears no resemblance to a child and because of that it has no standing or rights. Because this claim flies in the face basic biological science, the pro-abortion camp have played the exact same type of shell game with the facts that “anti-vaxxers” (those who oppose SARS-CoV-2 vaccines) have played with the COVID vaccines that have been available.
Both the pro-abortion and anti-vaxxers deliberately distort information and trot out so-called “experts” to bolster their claims. They assume that if their “experts” have a biology or medical degree, those already predisposed to being suckered into a particular point of view will blindly believe whatever some so-called expert says without questioning it.
In the abortion issue, the lies that these fake “experts” tell to push along the “fetus isn’t a real life” claim are easily debunked by logic and real science.
Dependence = Sameness Fallacy
Those relying on this fallacy claim that since the fetus is some “clump of cells” that can’t survive outside the uterus and is completely dependent on the mother for survival, that means it can’t possibly be alive or have any legitimacy to the protection that our society affords to those who are “alive.”
The fallacy is easy to refute by both biological fact and human/social parallel.
First, those making such a “dependence equals sameness” fallacy ignore the fact that the DNA makeup of the fetus is only one-half of the mother on which they correctly state the fetus is dependent upon for survival inside the uterus. Thus, the “sameness” isn’t exactly accurate at all.
The error that they make in “dependence” is only true inasmuch as the fetus is physically dependent on the mother for survival. Their claim is proven wrong when “dependence” is carried forward to the child after his or her birth, as he/she is equally completely dependent (for a period of time) on his/her mother and father.
Violations of Logic
Some will mix scientific fact with nonscientific nonsense, with just enough science to sound legitimate but the remainder of their arguments defy scientific logic that we’ve applied to everything in our world for centuries.
There are way too many examples all over the Internet of people making these claims, it’s easier for you to just search for them yourself rather than me posting links here. I’ll post just one example, by self-proclaimed “biologist” Jerry Coyne whose arguments are that typical misinterpretation of science and nonsensical mixture of fake science and a bastardization of moral concepts.
But all of these arguments, however they’re worded, violate those basic biological tenets that sperm and egg of whatever species, once fertilized, begin the process of life that, left unimpeded by natural biological error (i.e., miscarriage) or deliberate act (i.e., abortion) will result in a life that is able to survive first inside the host animal (human or other animal mother), and ultimately outside the host animal.
Equivalence to Nonliving Matter
This fallacy is an offshoot of the denial of life concept, and relies on denial of nature itself to deny that the fetus is alive, separate, and worthy of protection.
The fact remains that while living matter will reproduce in a certain fashion, we don’t see nonliving entities performing this same function. For example, two grains of sand cannot suddenly decide to fuse together and create a living thing. Two cells of wood tissue on a two-by-four, once cut from a living tree, will not spontaneously combine and grow a new tree.
This is where this particular pro-choice lie falls apart – living cells combine and grow in a prearranged pattern; nonliving matter does not. Thus cells from living tissue (aka, us) will still perform their prearranged function – in the case of a fertilized female human egg, the prearranged function is to continue to multiply and grow in a prearranged manner. THAT is life, pure and simple… and indisputable.
No Rights While Unborn
Some will claim that while they would agree that the fetus is alive, the fetus has no rights while he/she remains unborn. Claiming that a life doesn’t have rights literally goes against the “living people have rights” argument that many pro-choice people would otherwise make for anyone actually born.
This is a perfect example of Orwellian double-think. Their double-think parallels are obvious, since they’re typically the same ones who will, as just one example, rant and rave over news of poachers killing pregnant female animals in the wild, appearing to feel that the fetus of an animal on the savannah should be protected, but they have no problem with a human fetus being destroyed at any old whim.
Still others will admit to the biology, admit to the fact that fetus is in fact alive and while dependent on the mother, distinct from the mother, but will simply use the “I’m more important than the fetus” argument to lay claim to their “right” to indiscriminate abortion while assuaging their conscience that what they’re doing isn’t at least morally wrong.
Reconciling
Regardless of what the pro-choice camp would claim, since it’s obvious that any argument that denies and violates basic biological facts is false and indefensible, the heart of the issue become clear: does the fetus have the right to live?
Obviously the pro-choice argument would be “no”, and the pro-life argument would be “yes.”
But is there any reconciliation here? Can either side come to some sort of compromise that would satisfy everyone, even if neither side gets everything their way?
I’m convinced that there is. We’ll discuss that next time.
