The Abortion Dodge

Mo

Yesterday, The Atlantic published an absurd article, which it promoted on Twitter with the headline: “How the ultrasound pushed the idea that a fetus is a person.” In the article, the author offered a confused and scientifically-dubious diatribe on statutes promoting the use of ultrasound imaging for women who are contemplating abortion.

​The article claims that “the current debate shows how effectively politicians have used visual technology to redefine what counts as ‘life.’” And this paragraph in particular perfectly captures the slipperiness of language the Left uses to talk about abortion, in order to avoid the real debate:  

Their sponsors act as if ultrasound images “prove” that a fetus is equivalent to a “baby,” and that pregnant women only have to be shown ultrasound images in order to draw the same conclusion. But the “heartbeat” made visible via ultrasound does not actually demonstrate any decisive change of state in the cell mass that might become a fetus.

This reasoning—that the ultrasound “proves” “that a fetus is equivalent to a ‘baby’”—is entirely backward. It isn’t the ultrasound that proves it. It’s science, and it happens at fertilization.  

Specifically, when the sperm (a sex cell that contains the father’s DNA) fertilizes the egg (a sex cell that contains the mother’s DNA), a “zygote” with a mix of genes inherited from the parents is formed, which becomes a “fetus” at week eight of gestation. The genetic makeup of the zygote/fetus is human and totally distinct from the parents’. The zygote/fetus is a distinct human being. An abortion is the intentional killing of a human being.

Abortion advocates go to great lengths to avoid this basic scientific fact, by relying on word games, euphemisms, and bad logic.   

• “It’s just a ‘clump of cells’ or a ‘fetus.’” Sure. So what? All humans are clumps of cells. And all fetuses are humans. This is a non sequitur.
• “So, you’re saying masturbation and menstruation are abortions, then.” No, they’re not. Sperm and eggs are sex cells that contain human DNA, nothing more. They’re not a separate and distinct human being with his own DNA, like a fertilized egg.
• “Women will be prosecuted for miscarriages.” No, they won’t, just as people don’t get prosecuted for someone else’s death from natural causes.
• “A zygote or fetus is not a person.” OK.  What’s a person? Where is the line between a person, entitled to protection, and a non-person? At what point is a zygote or fetus imbued with personhood? There’s no clean answer to these questions, at least not without including in the non-person category people who are not unborn humans, like newborn babies. Ironically, this raises the very same sort of metaphysical and moral questions, such as ensoulment, that abortion advocates often insist don’t belong in this debate.   
• “A zygote or fetus is not independent from the woman.” This is a relative of the “personhood” argument. Newborn babies are dependent too, as are toddlers, elderly people, and people with disabilities, among others. Why does the location of this human being matter?
• “My body, my choice.” I will say that this argument gets as close to the real debate as an abortion advocate is typically willing to get. Abortion advocates believe the mother’s body takes precedence over the life of the unborn child. My question is why? Why does the woman’s right to an empty uterus override another human being’s right to live?

The question of whether and under what circumstances we should allow the intentional killing of a human being isn’t easy, but it becomes significantly more difficult when abortion advocates try to obfuscate and dodge it. The Atlantic’s article is a terrific illustration of the mental gymnastics involved in avoiding the question. That abortion advocates want to avoid the question demonstrates how uncomfortable they are with the answer.