Response To Responses To The Abortion Argument 1

 https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1HmDbsC3FF/

"Abortion Arguments Series: Day 1 of 10

"It's not a baby, it's a fetus." / "It's just a clump of cells."

Yesterday I posted the pro-life argument in three steps, with no religion required.

The comment section exploded. Hundreds of replies.

Some of the pushback was thoughtful and deserves a real answer. A lot of it was the same talking points you hear over and over, built on flawed logic.

So I'm going to take them one at a time.

This is Day 1 of a 10-day series where I'll address the top 10 arguments for abortion with zero religious arguments. (Check the comments for the full list.)

Let's start today with the argument I heard more than any other.

I said the unborn child is an innocent, defenseless human being. I was repeatedly told:

"It's a fetus. Fetus and embryo are the correct medical terms, and doctors use them every day. At six weeks, an embryo is smaller than a pea."

That's the argument. Let's test it with four questions.

1. Is it alive?

It grows. It metabolizes nutrients. Its cells divide and differentiate. It responds to its environment. It's developing according to its own internal program. Those are the criteria biologists use to define life. The embryo meets every one of them.

2. Is it human?

If it's alive, it must belong to a species. Which one? It's not a dog or a plant. Clearly, it's a living member of the species Homo sapiens. Humans reproduce other humans.

3. Is it a distinct organism, or just part of the mother?

A lot of people think of the embryo as an extension of the mother's body. It isn't.

From fertilization, it directs its own development. It builds its own organs, its own nervous system, its own heartbeat. It can have a different blood type than its mother. Half the time, it's a different sex than its mother.

Your kidney and appendix don't do that.

4. Is it a person?

This one is more complex, so it gets its own post tomorrow.

But on the first three points, even the other side agrees.

Peter Singer, one of the most famous pro-choice philosophers alive, openly accepts that the embryo is a living human being. He just argues it isn't a person.

And when more than 5,500 biologists were surveyed, 96% said a human's life begins at fertilization.

This isn't a religious claim. It's the science.

So when abortion advocates can't refute the science, what do they do?

They change the words: "fetus," "clump of cells," "parasite."

Yes, "fetus" is a legitimate scientific term. But it's a stage of development, not a different kind of being. So are infant, toddler, and adolescent. None of them change that it's a human being, only how far along it is.

"Clump of cells"? So are you. Just a bigger one. The difference is that an embryo is a self-organizing human being developing on its own path. A tumor isn't.

"Parasite"? A parasite is a foreign organism of a different species. Your child isn't.

And here's what exposes the whole game.

In at least 38 states, if someone attacks a pregnant woman and her unborn child dies, the attacker can be charged with the death of that child as a separate victim. That includes some of the most progressive states in the country, like California, Illinois, and Minnesota.

But those same laws exempt abortion.

So when a stranger ends that life, the law treats it as the death of a child. When the mother chooses to end that same life, we're told it's just a clump of cells.

Same child. Same death. The only thing that changed is who made the decision.

Call me crazy, but we shouldn't be toggling someone's humanity on and off based on whether they're wanted.

And notice we don't, when the child is wanted.

Nobody throws a "fetus shower."

Nobody posts an ultrasound on Facebook with the caption "It's a clump of cells!"

When a woman miscarries, nobody tells her she lost some tissue. We tell her we're sorry for the loss of her baby. Because we all know what she lost.

When the child is wanted, everyone uses the language of a child. When the child isn't wanted, the language suddenly changes.

And remember, history is full of people being called "parasites" and "subhuman" right before they were sent to the gas chambers. When the vocabulary shifts depending on who's wanted, we should pay attention.

So, to recap:

It's alive. It's human. It's a distinct organism. Science doesn't seriously dispute any of that.

Which brings us to tomorrow's argument:

"Okay, it's a human being. But it's not a person.""