Greetings to you brave souls, hardy enough to explore the subjects before us in the light of day. Not obscured with the shadows of emotion and mis-information, topics that divide the nation and cause unnecessary stress on the individual. Only because we have been convinced that what we endorse, or believe in, must be accepted by all within hearing distance of the street crier. My purpose in writing this article is not to convince one side or the other of how right, or wrong, one is over the other.
My goal is to question the supposed rightness of each position, and the possibility that neither are correct in their assertions. And that there is a chance that more intelligent discussion is needed before we arrive at a decision. And by stating more “intelligent” conversation, I stress here the subject at hand being scrutinized in a manner that may appear scientific in one regard, and philosophical in another. We will investigate whether the rhetoric of religious fervor has any merit, and, if science has failed us in this endeavor to define life, or when life begins.
In a nation in which the rights of individuals have been eroded, and voted out of existence by groups hellbent on “their” idea being embraced as the higher morality. One group, alienating folks that could help the cause, by screaming that men have no say in the matter, until it comes time to vote, to help push the pro-abortion agenda forward. Then it is okay for men to have a say? I say no, you can’t have it both ways. You cannot tell us men to keep our mouths shut during the discussion, then ask for our help when it benefits you to have our numbers represented on your side of the discussion. Regardless of what side one finds themselves.
In a nation that claims to be a nation of free people, and a nation of laws at the same time. An oxymoron if you will, it can be confusing when the state itself cannot make up its mind when defining morality. An example is when a state will allow the abortion of a fetus, but then charge another with murder, if in an act of violence, that fetus is “killed” by an unauthorized and unrequested abortion. Just like the ladies that want the men to stay out of the discussion until it’s time to vote are in error, so is the state to say that one act is murder, and another is simply a medical procedure to remove some tissue, that has no definition. Welcome to the discussion!
As I begin my stroll through the many different aspects of the subject matter, I will do my best to present one argument, then the other, in assessing whether or not we need more discussion on the matter, or if the folks presenting their argument have enough validity or not. There may be times when I blend or meld certain facts from one argument to another to make a point. If I appear to be providing more material to oppose the ideas of one side over another, it’s important to make sure we keep all of what I say in context. I may provide links that offer a compelling argument, deleting the need to be redundant in this article on the same subject matter. In that statement I am compelling the reader to investigate the links for your complete understanding of the debate. My suspicion is that neither camp of proponents of their chosen morality, have an in depth understanding of the subject.
And in the discussion of the morality of allowing abortions to continue or not, we must include the institution that believes it has the knowledge or “right,” to impose morality on the population as defined by that institution. That institution being the church, or as I like to refer to it, as the body of Christ. And it would seem that regardless of the denomination of the church, there is a definite hatred for abortion. Unfortunately, the people that darken the doors of those different congregations all have differing views on the subject of abortion, why?
I believe it is because many of the folks that attend services at a church, have accepted certain moralities as defined by the church, as in line with their own beliefs, therefore to be followed, and those that fall outside their belief as too extreme. Or, simply in conflict with their own definition of morality. In truth, this defines the modern Christian (I provide a link to verify my assertion in this https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/ ). Taking the position of the church is to say that the act of an abortion is an act of defiance against god, therefore it is to be opposed. This is based on the belief, that anything done to circumvent reproduction between a man and a woman, as a result of enjoying each other’s company in a sexual union, is in defiance of god.
This does create some problems for the modern Christian, or anyone else that believes any time two people meet in loving embrace, should be either punished, or rewarded with a screaming human being. This definitely falls into the belief embraced by the Catholic Church. Which is why, in those areas dominated by that church, in which the people, either out of fear of burning in hell for eternity, or of shame from the community of believers, will not even use a good condom to prevent pregnancy. And in these areas of the world, which are over populated, and impoverished, is a prime example of why this is a faulty belief.
Not only is it viewed as a faulty belief because of the problems it creates in a world closing in on eight billion souls, it violates the rights of others that have chosen not be a party to such beliefs. In a nation in which separation of church and state are supposed to be observed as much by the inability of the government to impose its will on the church, non-church goers are to be exempt by the laws of the church. Which is what this amounts to, a Christian law, mandated upon all the people of this nation. Is that what you want? Without a return to the concept of a Republic, or a confederation of states, that is what we are experiencing.
And in absence of an intelligent conversation on the matter, many so-called Christians do not even see it this way. This, they say, is democracy. And so it is, as Ben Franklin is credited with saying; “democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what is for dinner, and then voting on it”. According to Pew research, the number of people claiming Christian as their faith are in decline, are these laws being passed, a surety that the Christian way of life will prevail even after they are out of power? I would like the reader to ponder on this statement for a bit, give it some real thought if you haven’t already. If you are a Christian, do you believe you have the right to impose on another, a biblical law you have volunteered to adhere too?
I actually believe to some extant it is an attempt to prevent other Christians within the flock from sinning. You see, about 66 percent of white protestant non-evangelical believers think that abortion should be allowed in most cases. While 77 percent of white evangelical believers oppose abortion in almost all cases. So, in the attempt to “save” their sisters in the faith, they must make it next to impossible to have an abortion in a safe, secure manner.
We have looked at the non-procreative view of Christians as one of the primary reasons for the opposition to abortions. I will touch only briefly on one of the second most, or for some, the only side of the argument they believe they need. And that is the sanctity of life, the belief that life is precious, and is to be preserved and honored to honor god. For an in depth look at this in its most descriptive manner, and for a full understanding of what this is based on, visit the article How Do You Define Sanctity of Life?
In that article you will learn that sanctity of life cannot be determined of a fetus when using traditional and accepted definitions of the words used to define the word sanctity. Without the ability to act, and be observed performing actions, the use of the word sanctity is misused. There is the belief that life is holy, and this too must be confirmed only through acts that are deserving of being called pious acts, or holy acts. As we move forward to the second half of the discussion, please do not lose the thoughts that are fostered here, because you may be able to see a similar mindset in the group that is screaming for the right to obtain an abortion.
How Does Science Determine Life?
For the group of people that advocate for the right of getting an abortion, the primary theme of their argument is that it cannot be determined as to when life begins. We shall examine this side of the argument to see if that statement holds up under scrutiny, or is it a convenient manner to clear one’s conscience? In order to do this, I will look at the scientific manner in which something is determined to be alive. We shall, for the ease of discussion, not get entangled in the thorny argument, of which, there isn’t even consensus from those that embrace the soulfulness of humans. The point at which the soul enters the body will be left for you all to argue among yourselves unto infinity I believe. We shall only look at the scientific method of determining life.
There are many in the anti-abortion camp that are perplexed that something like bacteria can be called “life”, while a fetus that has been developed to the point of looking like a little person, is still up for debate. And in this I find the failure of science to step up to the plate and deliver a home run, ending the debate for all time. But the majority of scientist are made up of cowards that do not have the balls needed to make such a proclamation. We will examine together, using the methods, and descriptions provided by these invertebrates to make a determination ourselves.
When asking the question, is bacteria considered life forms, the answer on Google was yes. And according to socratic.org there are seven characteristics that are used to define life; able to carry out homeostasis, being composed of one or more cells, being able to carry out metabolism, able to carry out growth, able to adapt to environment, respond to stimuli, reproduction. In examining each and every one of these with common sense applied, and medical, and scientific processes looked at to determine when all of these conditions are met, or if they can be met, in the unborn child.
In my typical way, I will also question the so-called characteristics of life as determined by scientist. I just happen to see several things in there that call into question, at least in my mind whether or not these intellectuals have the ability to make the determination or not. It’s almost as if a group of scientists were sitting around a big desk discussing amongst themselves what constitutes life. In the complete absence of someone like me that would raise a hand and say, “I have a question about something”. Well, my hand is raised and I will ask the question, maybe one of you really smart people out there will have an answer.
We will start with the ability to carry out homeostasis, can a fetus self-regulate its internal functions on its own? While there was some information out there that seemed to indicate that on a small scale, generally in the chemical balance of the body, the fetus can perform some functions that qualify as homeostasis. But most of its life functions are regulated by the mother in the early stages of development. I will expound on this more later, but the short answer is that up until about 20 weeks of gestation, there is no way that the fetus could survive outside the womb on its own.
And I would like to think that anyone reading this is aware that a fetus consists of one or more cells. Which satisfies the requirement in that regard. Because those cells divide and multiply from time of conception onward, the requirement for growth is met. So far, we are two out of three for meeting the requirements of life as designated by science. If we look at when a fetus can or does normally respond to stimuli, well there are various different studies out there. It would seem that for the most part, starting at eight weeks the fetus will respond to touch, and by week twenty-two the fetus responds to light. When looking at adaptability to environment, the answer is for the most part no. Up to twenty weeks the fetus would surely die outside the womb.
Being able to carry out metabolism is about as important as maintaining homeostasis, and in this we find, much like homeostasis, that the fetus is unable to do so on its own until the twentieth week of gestation. And even then, without assistance it would probably die in most cases. So, without the ability to carry out metabolism, which is taking the nutrients brought into the body and using it properly for each function it is designated for, as well as homeostasis, the ability to self-regulate the body functions, much of which is generating heat, and regulating that heat in the body, the fetus would be inviable outside the mother’s body.
When looking at one of the requirements for life I see reproduction. According to science, as I understand the unexplained definition, if unable to reproduce an entity is not alive? This has to be more complex than this, yes? According to science, if a woman is barren, or a man sterile, they are not alive? A woman past menopause that is unable to have children is no longer living? If you only take that for its face value, a man that has his balls blown off on the battlefield, or removed because of cancer should be labeled dead? I believe they need to either revise that one or drop it from the list.
It is from this point on that this part of the article gets a little dark. Not because I want it to, it just must. Much of what I found using various sources would indicate that up until the twentieth week of gestation, the fetus would surely die outside the womb. It simply cannot maintain even the basic of bodily functions. For many this would be enough to say that it surely does not constitute life. But many states allow abortions to occur much past this, up until just minutes or seconds before emerging from the birth canal. I have even read of accounts, I can’t verify the truth of these, but they claim that doctors will remove the baby to another room while the mother makes up her mind! Pretty much like in antiquity using what the ancients called death by exposure, but in the old days they would remove the baby to the outside and leave it to die from the elements.
Using the source https://www.healthline.com/health/baby/premature-baby-survival-rate we find that the survival of the fetus is possible by the twentieth week. It does say that a baby that is born before the twenty-fourth week only has a fifty percent chance of living. However, after that it goes up very much. Out of the 8,300 or so deliveries in the U.S of babies born at twenty-four weeks; the survival goes up to 68 percent! At twenty weeks, I believe it is safe to say that the fetus has all the requirements for life. If you were faced with certain death, or a fifty percent chance of living if you had surgery, most would opt for the surgery. And in this I believe we have a conundrum, if the state sanctions abortions after this point, I believe it is no different than when the state sends men and women out on the battlefield to “kill” the enemy, it is state sanctioned murder.
I will encourage the reader to visit the website provided for your education on the subject. I have not used any religious rhetoric, my personal views on this were changed during my own investigation of the subject. Simply using the criteria given to us by science we can conclude, I believe to have been determined from a scientific point, when life begins. Or should we say, could begin, if given the chance to express life by being born. Oh, I can hear the howls already, Seamus, you left out the fact that so many of those preemie babies will have medical issues after they grow. And, conveniently you left out the fact, that without medical support few of those early babies would live more than a day, or even a few hours.
To those good people I would say you have underestimated old Seamus. I certainly took that into account. But then another voice spoke up and said to question the medical establishment a little bit. You are correct to say that many of those very early preemie babes would parish without medical help. But so would an incredible number of people across this country of ours.
If you say to me that only when a child born into the world can survive without medical assistance can it be deemed viable life, you are the same person that would condemn a poor soul to death because their kidneys were in failure. You see, they cannot maintain homeostasis on their own either! Or maybe because the young babes need help breathing on a respirator, that too is help that should not be afforded to your grandma when she got pneumonia? And just as spending extra time with grandma is wonderful, so should the preservation of “life” that is at the other end of the spectrum.
Boy receives dialysis to stay alive. 
Sleeping caucasian mature woman connected to a ventilator mask
Tens of thousands of people across this country get a chance to extend their lives because of technology, and yet you say it should be denied to the youngest among us? The oldest among us will cling to life even when it has lost all of its joy and value, out of a fear of death. But they at least get the choice to do so, we can’t know from these early births what they would desire. Maybe the fear of living would compel some to abstain from life saving actions, taken by people that have spent years learning how to keep them alive. But it would seem to me that most would choose that which the elders cling to with every fiber of their being, life.
In a world without compromise these days, it would seem that the situation here demands a compromise. For those that want to keep the option of abortion in the legal status as a form of birth control, can we at least consider the scientific manner in which we have determined life, and concede that there is life after 20 weeks? I am not a woman, but just using common sense alone it would seem to me that abortion has to be one of the least efficient and most costly forms of birth control around. From a logic perspective it would seem that an IUD would be a far superior method of “preventing” a pregnancy. The morning after pill for those who slip up seems pretty easy too.
What I find most perplexing about this is the number of people that seem to be in revolt across the country over the possible ban on abortion. In 2018 there were only 629,898 abortions performed. This is like, .02 or .03 percent of the population of the U.S and yet it would seem that there are so many on one side or the other that are coming unhinged over the issue. Out of the hundreds of individual rights being trampled on by the state every year, why is this one getting so much attention?
Personally, I believe it is just one more distraction for the human primates to fight over. Meanwhile we continue to conduct war around the globe, killing women and children by the tens of thousands and those poor souls don’t really have anyone out there in the street advocating for them. Personal freedoms are disappearing like a snow cone on an L.A. sidewalk, and the only one that seems worthy of protests, marches, and millions of dollars spent either protecting the right, or fighting to abolish the right, of abortion.
Oh, but wait a minute, maybe that old maxim, follow the money has something to do with all of this! And that is where I will trail off into the mist. This is far from being discussed to its fullest. Truthfully, we could just be getting started on this discussion because it hasn’t from my perspective been discussed much. Just a lot of shouting. It was in love that I greeted you, and it is in love that I say farewell, until we meet again.
Seamus Pendragon