Babies. Unborn babies. I bet you've heard a lot about them in the last few weeks, and I've mostly stayed out of debates about them because I didn't feel knowledgeable enough about important facts. I was scared that people would just say I'm trying to cram my beliefs down other people's throats, tell them what to do with their bodies. Well, I'm over that and I need to give my perspective on all of this Planned Parenthood crap. I will not deny that my Christian beliefs play a role in my beliefs concerning elective abortion (which we're just going to call abortion from here on out, but I didn't want someone to play the semantics card), but I'm going to try to make these arguments without relying on that, because I don't need to. Christians shouldn't be afraid to proclaim their beliefs, but I think that if you can successfully argue a point without them, it'll resonate better to non-believers. So, here we go.
One big aspect of the abortion debate has always been the question of when does it become "life" in the womb. A lot of people say it's when there's a heartbeat, some say when you can measure brain activity, and of course there are those that believe life begins at conception. I used to be slightly uncomfortable with the conception idea, but only because that would mean that if I had an early miscarriage I could have lost a baby without even seeing them on an ultrasound. That's scary. Grief is scary and no one wants to put themselves in that pain unnecessarily. And a heartbeat or brain activity make sense pretty easily; humans like to quantify and qualify things and those benchmarks are measurable. However, humans also like to assign definitions. So here is the definition of life via Merriam-Webster:
a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
If you look it up yourself, there are a bunch of definitions under the heading of life, but I think these pertain to our discussion the most. According to the dictionary, there needs to be the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. While a baby in the womb will not be reproducing, they have the capacity, as they have reproductive organs. If you say "but they aren't developed yet, and they don't get them upon conception" then ok; are pre-pubescent girls alive? A female cannot reproduce until starting menstruation, and even then some women are infertile. Are they any less a life? I don't think so. Secondly, unborn babies react to stimuli at an amazingly early time. Honestly, I don't know the exact week count, and obviously it isn't as early as conception, but it's certainly way earlier than 20wks, since ultrasound techs poke and prod at mama's bellies trying to get babies to "cooperate" for anatomical scans. I can find sources that say a baby has reflexes 12wks into pregnancy, but that's just doing a quick search. Then, I think we can all agree that there is metabolism and growth going on in the womb, so I'm not going to go further on those.
Now I have heard people say that all of those capacities need to be fulfilled, while being self-sustaining. I find this silly. I could argue that a 1 month old baby isn't self-sustaining, because even if you left them in a warm, predator-free environment, with a bowl/bottle/container of breastmilk or formula nearby, they would never survive. Same could be said for the very elderly, paraplegics, and people in comas. I know there are people that don't consider someone on life support to be alive, but that's the far end of the spectrum. Another example of non-self-sustaining life: parasites. A tape worm can't survive without it's host. Maybe that's a reach, since once attached they are feeding themselves, sort of, but you get my point.
Another point to the life argument, which I think would appeal to the very scientifically minded, is "alien life". Here we are, looking for life on other planets, and all we're looking for is single-celled organisms, and maybe signs of water. If a microorganism like that will fulfill our requirements for extraterrestrial life, how does it not meet the terrestrial life bill? Upon conception, there is only a day or two that there is a single cell, if that. By about day 5, when the mother wouldn't even know she was pregnant, there is already a mass of cells referred to as a blastocyst. It may not look like a baby, but it's certainly more than what we're looking for on other planets. And some may say that I'm just trying to define life generally, not human life, but if the only genetic material contributed is human, what else could it be? And those of you that believe solely in evolution rather than a divine creator, don't you believe that humans evolved from a mass of cells, if that? I'm not trying to be condescending or anything like that, but I do believe that's kind of a main aspect of evolution.
I have a few more points, but it would probably double the length of this, and right now I'm emotionally spent. I will try to get back to this soon, but I need to be ready to sit down and think because I don't want to ruin something because I didn't think it through. I know this could already have been argued better, but it's a blog post people, mostly just a cursory argument for life. I really hope that this helps those of you arguing for life to strengthen your arguments, and those of you arguing to allow abortion maybe start to see the argument against it. But I have no delusions of grandeur, about changing a ton of people's minds on a topic that they are likely passionate about. So until next time, love those babies in your life.
