Jul
19

Answering Objections to “Just One Question”

The other day I (re-)discovered a comment that a reader named “Ian” had left on a blogpost of mine a couple months ago, and I had forgotten all about it. The blogpost itself was from 2011, in which I presented the “just one question” argument for the pro-life position. For a number of reasons, I decided to make a separate blogpost out of my response.

Here is Ian’s comment verbatim:

“I have many concerns about your argument as presented here, and would make these suggestions:

1. Delete the photo- the post-born baby is nothing like a zygote/blastocyst/embryo.
2. Please do not refer to the aborted as “children” – children are post-infant, not pre-born.
3. To give context, where you quote 53.5 million abortions, add live births, miscarriages, plus estimated natural abortions.
4. If you do not live in a theocracy, beliefs of theists are not relevant to non-theists.
5. You may consider abortuon [sic] to be serious, but this presumably reflects your values/morals – it is not your place to judge the values/morals of any other person.
6. The decision to abort is made by the (legal) guardian – you are not the legal guardian.”

My response…

“Thanks for reading and commenting, Ian. I apologize for the delayed response. While you stated your concerns quite concisely, as is often the case, thoughtful responses often need a bit more text. So, I hope you don’t mind me doing so in a separate post. Taking your “suggestions” in order…

I strongly disagree. As pointed out in my original post, “zygote”, “blastocyst”, “embryo” (through 2nd month), and “fetus” (post-2nd month) all refer to stages of development for an organism that is — genetically- and biologically-speaking — fully human from the point of conception and distinct from its mother. The unborn also looks exactly like it should for a human in those stages. (Same goes for other organisms during the gestational process.)
I noticed you left out “fetus” from among those things “the post-born baby is nothing like”. Maybe that’s because you realize that the unborn looks increasingly more like post-born babies during those 7 months of development? (Btw, did you read my follow-up post?)
Why should I accept your definition of “children”? A quick Google search finds definitions for “child” ranging from “a person between birth and full growth” or “a person between birth and puberty” to “a baby or infant” to “a human fetus”. The first definition given for “child” in the Oxford English Dictionary is “an unborn or newly born human being; a fetus, an infant”. (In fact, “The primary sense appears to have been ‘fetus’.” Think of the old phrase of being “with child” to mean being pregnant.) More generally, when speaking of biological relations, a “child” is simply “a person’s natural offspring”, where “offspring” is “The organism or organisms resulting from sexual or asexual reproduction,” regardless of stage of development.
Those additional statistics may indeed be interesting and relevant — though, not necessarily significant — to a broader discussion, but they really aren’t required for the narrower focus of the post. Incidentally, miscarriages are truly sad but they happen under natural circumstances. As such, they cannot meaningfully be compared with abortions — whether via “natural remedies”, pill, D&E, etc. — because miscarriages aren’t the intentional actions of others to snuff out an innocent human life. Otoh, that is exactly what abortion is.
I am curious, by “not relevant to non-theists”, do you mean that any belief a theist has (outside of a theocracy) is irrelevant and to be ignored in matters of public policy and/or personal behavior? Or, do you simply mean that, without a theocratic state to enforce such beliefs, a non-theist can safely ignore without fear of punishment anything of a religious bent? Or…?

Of course, as stated in the original post, my argument was a non-religious one. No scriptures referenced or doctrines required. One does not have to be a theist to agree with it. Are you ignoring that, since you know I am a theist?

Perhaps I should also note that the United States, at least, was founded on Judeo-Christian ideas and principles, and most of our early leaders were theists of some sort. Should we ignore their thoughts and opinions simply because they were theists? Or, maybe just the theological beliefs? We do not live in a theocracy, but theists and non-theists alike have the freedom (generally speaking) to express themselves — offer information, opinion, rationale, etc. — in the “public square”, whether to inform or persuade, regardless of their worldview.
Sure I do.

“Judgment” at its core is evaluation or assessment of whether a thing is good or bad, right or wrong, safe or dangerous, pretty or ugly, decent or indecent, wise or foolish. It helps keep us safe, healthy, happy, financially solvent, and, yes, is part of what determines what positions we hold on various topics. We do it all the time — yes, even you.

In fact, by telling me “it is not your place to judge the values/morals of any other person”, you ironically made two such judgments. First, you judged (i.e., evaluated or assessed) that “judging” is bad/wrong. Second, you judged (i.e., evaluated or assessed) that anyone who commits the offense of “judging” is, therefore, bad/wrong for doing so. Who are you to judge me — see how that works? — when you are guilty of the very “crime” you accused me of?

I’ll leave it at that, but we can get into moral objectivism vs. relativism, if you like.
I’m pretty sure a legal guardian only gets involved when the pregnant girl is a minor or otherwise considered legally incompetent to make a responsible decision. Of course, plenty of legally-competent women over 18 get pregnant and make life-or-death decisions about the child(ren) in their womb(s).

It is true, I am not the legal guardian in any such cases, nor do I personally have any legal authority in making such decisions for anyone. So what? I am an individual with my own set of knowledge, beliefs, and opinions, which (as indicated earlier) I am legally permitted to share with others. (For now, anyway.) People have the right to read/see and consider what I have to say. (Just as I allow you to comment on my blog, and I and others can read your comments and consider what you write.)

The fact that I am not the legal guardian for anyone wrestling with the decision of whether or not to get an abortion is irrelevant. (To my knowledge, none of the Supreme Court justices who voted in the majority for the Roe v. Wade decision were in such a position, either.) But, I can still encourage others to think carefully about the facts and to reconsider any thoughts they may have about committing what I believe to be a grievous injustice and a moral crime.”