A Social Media Conversation on Abortion

A few days ago I saw an article describing a woman who aborted twins late during her pregnancy because they were girls.  I linked to that article and posted an argument with abbreviate words due to Twitter's 140-charater limit.  Below I’ve rewritten the post without the original abbreviations:

Killing a human without proper justification is wrong. Abortion kills a human without proper justification. Abortion is wrong.

My Twitter account is linked to my Facebook account.  Here is a copy of the conversation that followed from this post:

Friend: in my opinion, behavior X is morally reprehensible. after much effort, behavior X has become illegal. problem solved: behavior X ceases to happen.

Me: To what are you referring when you say "behavior X has become illegal"?

Friend: i mean a sufficient number of lawmakers pass laws to deem behavior X as a criminal act and that law is deemed consistent with the constitution

Me: You are describing "is" or "how things actually work". I'm describing "ought". Currently abortion *is* legal, but it *ought* not be legal.

Friend: and making abortion illegal will make abortions go away?

Me:  No. Murder of adult humans is illegal, and it still happens. If I follow your logic, we should give up and make murder of adult humans legal as well.

Friend: i would say that if murder were legal and we had X murders, and making it illegal yielded slightly less than X murders, then making it illegal isn't an effective deterrent. of course, that's not the case because most people see murder as wrong. but that isn't the case with abortion. despite your black-and-white take on it, many, many folks see it as a personal medical procedure. whether you're right or they're right doesn't matter. stomping your foot isn't going to change minds or behaviors; it just creates polarization. now, i would say that an overwhelming majority of people think that abortion is extremely unfortunate and the number of abortions should be minimized. so instead of fixating on who's right in a philosophical argument, we should be focusing on reducing the number of abortions. and that requires respecting and working with a wider range of viewpoints

I have some serious disagreements with what my friend posts here, but also a lot of agreement.  He has said quite a bit, and I want to give him and his thoughts the respect that they are due by dealing with them in some detail.  Below is my response to each of the points that he makes.  Obviously this is a one-side conversation—one of the drawbacks of Tweets, comments, and blogs these days.

 

Friend: i would say that if murder were legal and we had X murders, and making it illegal yielded slightly less than X murders, then making it illegal isn't an effective deterrent. of course, that's not the case because most people see murder as wrong. but that isn't the case with abortion.

I disagree.  If the penalty was harsh and meted out swiftly, I do believe that it would serve as an effective deterrent.  For example, the practice of Sati (burning widows alive on the funeral pyre of their husbands) was effectively deterred in India by as hanging those responsible.  But this is not why I posted.  While I would be the first to applaud a law that illegalizes abortion on demand, I realize that in order for this to occur, more of the hearts and minds of the American people must be persuaded that abortion is indeed murder.  As you point out, there are a lot of folks that have confused thinking on this issue.  Although it has vacillated of late, a recent Gallop poll, however, seems to indicate that the overall trend may be headed more pro-life.

Friend: despite your black-and-white take on it, many, many folks see it as a personal medical procedure.

I agree with all that you’ve said.  This is precisely why I posted my comment.  People are justifying heinous acts with sloppy thinking.

Friend:  whether you're right or they're right doesn't matter.

I have to believe that you do not in fact believe your statement here.  Do you think that what you’ve written is right?  Does it matter if what you’ve written throughout this dialogue is right or wrong?  Taking your statement at face value (i.e., right and wrong truly do not matter) is extremely dangerous.  If this is true, any act is permissible.  This is not a “the sky is falling” conservative gamesmanship move here.  There is a logical slippery slope at play.  (Unfortunately, the popular culture is only aware of fallacious slippery slopes.  The logical slippery slope occurs when one uses the same justification for an unexpected or unintended act or position that was previously used and accepted to defend a separate act or position.)

Friend: stomping your foot isn't going to change minds or behaviors; it just creates polarization.

Please show me where I am the one stomping my foot.  I offered a simple, logical argument as to why abortion is wrong—something for folks to consider.  How does one go about changing minds if not through reason, logic, and persuasion?  You’ve simply labeled what I’ve written as “foot stomping” to justify its dismissal so that you do not have to deal with the merits of the argument.  Your statements has a lot of flare, but there is no substance to it when it is examined.  I agree that a tough challenge to the way we think about issues creates polarization.  When folks carefully consider an argument they are forced out of the gray middle-ground to declare themselves.

Friend: now, i would say that an overwhelming majority of people think that abortion is extremely unfortunate and the number of abortions should be minimized.

Why?  What makes abortion “extremely unfortunate”?  Why should abortions be minimized?  If we were in direct verbal conversation, I wouldn’t move off of this point until you gave me an answer.  But since this is a written back and forth, I cannot linger.  I suppose you could say any number of things in answer to my question.  I think that at the heart of what you would say would always be this nugget of truth: abortion kills a human being without justification. That answer brings us to the focal point of the issue.  Let me illustrate.  A child walks up behind his or her mother or father and says, “Mom/Dad, can I kill this?”  Of course, what does that parent have to know in order to answer that question? He or she has to ask, “What is it?”  If it is a roach, then by all means snuff it out.  If it is the neighbor’s cat, then call the counselor.  But if it is his or her younger sibling, then we have serious issues.  Similarly, before we can say whether killing a fetus is okay or not, we have to ask what it is.  If the fetus is not a human, then no justification is needed for abortion—have as many as you want as late as you want.  Abortion is not unfortunate; it does not need minimized.  If, however, the fetus is a human, then no justification is adequate for abortion on demand.  The reason that the majority of people believe as you say they believe is that we all know what the answer to the question is—a fetus is a human that looks and acts and feels and thinks exactly as a human should at that age.

Friend:  so instead of fixating on who's right in a philosophical argument, we should be focusing on reducing the number of abortions. and that requires respecting and working with a wider range of viewpoints

It is precisely the “philosophical argument” that informs us on how we should act in this situation.  People have bought into a philosophical point of view, albeit indirectly, that is informing them (and you) on how to think about this issue.  The correct philosophy is what needs to be focused on.  Disagreeing with someone’s viewpoint or philosophy (as you obviously do with mine—if not the substance then at least the method) does not disrespect that person or their viewpoint.  When will we realize that differences in beliefs do not equate to hate or intolerance?  If there were no differences in how people think, there would be no need for tolerance.  I hope that I working with “wider ranges” of viewpoints even now.  We are engaged in a dialogue of sorts, aren’t we?

I know that you are able to construct good, creative proofs—you did it all the time in college.  I know that you understand the rules of logic.  But, for others out there who don’t and are also reading this, please humor this review.  An argument is said to be valid if it does not commit a structural error.  Most arguments are given as a syllogism that follow the forms 1) If P then Q. P. Q. or 2) If P then Q. Not Q. Not P.  The argument that I’ve given follows the first form:

• 1.      If P(one acts to take a human life without justification), then Q(that act is wrong).
• 2.      P(abortion is an act that takes a human life without justification).
• 3.      Q(that act, abortion, is wrong).

My argument is valid as it follows the proper form.  Furthermore, an argument is said to be sound if its premises are true.  If an argument is both valid and sound, then the conclusion is more certain than the universe’s existence (a la The Matrix).  So if you wish to deny the conclusion, you must show that my argument is not sound (i.e., one of the premises is not factual) since it abides by the correct form.

If you say that premise (1) is in error, we need to seclude you from society.  My guess is that those who disagree with the conclusion will attempt to defeat (2).  There are two ways to defeat (2):

a) either show that the fetus is not a human or
b) show that we have justification to kill it despite its humanity.

If one pursues path (a) they will have all of the data from biology to contend with.  In short, no one gets pregnant and wonders if they are going to have a human or a dog.  The fetus has its own life and is not a part of the mother’s body.  The DNA of the unborn is different than either the mother’s or the father’s DNA (let’s skip cloning here, ok?).  The embryo, zygote, and the fetus are all names of the stages that humans go through as we mature.  They look different than we do now, but they look just like we did and how they are supposed to look.  We continue to change all of our lives.  Gramps looks different than a teenager.  Can we off him?  The fetus is growing on its own with the nutrients from the mom.  The growth is self-directed.  Fetuses are human.

If one pursues path (b), none of the justifications given for abortion on demand will be adequate.  The differences between a fetus and me can all be boiled down to four qualities: Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Development.  These qualities have no moral bearing.  Therefore, changing one of these qualities cannot change the moral aspect of an action.  Therefore, one cannot justify abortion by stating that the fetus is smaller, less developed, inside the mother, or more dependent.  For any situation where you might think abortion is okay, imagine the same justification being made to kill a toddler.  Can we kill a toddler because he costs his parents too much?  Can we kill a toddler because she reminds her mother of being raped?  Can we will a toddler because he is not a girl?  Can we kill a toddler because her parents were siblings?  Can we kill a toddler because he must be fed and uses some of the parent’s resources?  Gaining size, becoming more independent, moving 10 inches down a birth canal, or becoming more developed to not bestow value to a human.  If you can kill an infant for a given justification, then you also kill a toddler for the same justification.  This is another example of a logical slippery slope.  You can find it in action here.

I want to close with some links to images that are horrifying.  You don’t have to click on the links if you choose not to do so.  These are shocking images, but this method is not a “shock attack”.  Using images to demonstrate a truth is not manipulation.  Even if those images are tragic.  If you have been viewing these images, you’ll have noted that about half of them are from concentration camps during the holocaust.  The Germans living nearby had no idea what was really going on.  Once they saw the evidence for themselves, they were shocked back to their senses.  That is my goal here, to help bring meaning back to the word “abortion”.  I also wear a pin of footprints that are the size of a 10-week-old fetus on my work lanyard to as a reminder of how fearfully and wonderfully we are made, even at such a young age.

I am convinced that we can respect one another and at the same time hold different beliefs.  I have attempted to calmly and thoughtfully make my case so that folks can reconsider their position on the issue.

If you are a bystander reading this conversation between my friend and me, and you have had an abortion, I am not here trying to throw a stone.  I do not hate you.  I am trying to convince you that you’ve made a grave mistake.  If you are already convinced of that, I want you to know that there is hope and forgiveness available to you.  This forgiveness is available from me…but that doesn’t really matter.  What does matter is that forgiveness and hope are also available to you from Jesus.  If you would like to discuss this more, I’d be happy to talk with you.

P.S. You may wonder why I have talked so much about justification and proper justification.  When I use the term, “abortion”, I mean to say “abortion on demand.”  In situations where there is a dilemma between a life and a life or lives and a life, I believe one can muster proper justification for the taking of a life.  The only situation that I am aware of that meets this standard is a tubal or ectopic pregnancy.  In those sad situations, we still value human life—so we act to save the mother.  Further, I contend that a mother diagnosed with cancer can, if she chooses, take chemotherapy.  Note, that I did not say abort the baby.  There are several reported cases of babies surviving a mother undergoing chemotherapy.  Even if the baby passes away during this treatment, however, the chemotherapy is justified in that the mother did not intentionally harm the baby but did pursue life saving medical treatment for herself.