A Rational Look at Abortion - Part 2

MEDICAL EXAMINATION

When answering questions regarding the continued legality and moral justification of abortion, one must first understand what the unborn are. What does it mean to abort a fetus? You may be surprised to learn that the science is conclusive and the answer is unanimous – human life begins at the moment of fertilization. Having an abortion means taking a human life. There is no way around it. It may be shocking to some people to realize that the unborn are distinct human beings. There is so much misinformation out there and lack of understanding on the part of both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life individuals and groups. People on both sides of the debate argue their view without any evidence. This is why I will be providing statements from medical examiners, scientists, Pro-Choice supporters and even the United States Senate. There should be no question whatsoever whether or not the unborn are human beings, and this being true, there needs to be accountability on the part of supporters of Amendment 73 for taking the life of a human being. Below I will now provide the testimonies of professionals regarding the unborn being distinct human beings from the moment of conception.

I felt it would be important to start with the testimony of Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of Planned Parenthood. She has been arguing since 1997 that everybody knows that abortion kills human beings. She says in an interview with Ms. Magazine, “I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.” Naomi Wolf, a prominent feminist author and supporter of abortion, provides a similar statement. She says, “Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life…we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death.” You can see from this statement that Wolf is honest in saying abortion kills, but that she thinks she can justify abortion rights morally. In later articles I will show that there is absolutely no possible way, morally or ethically, to justify the killing of a human being.

I also came across a relevant statement from the author of A Defense of Abortion, David Noonin. Noonin says in his book, “In the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point.” (pg. xiv).

With the three statements above from Pro-Choice advocates we can see that they understand the reality of abortion. All three of them acknowledge abortion as taking a life. All three of them also believe that the killing of certain human beings can be morally justified. Below I will provide excerpts from modern teaching texts which deal with embryology and prenatal development.

In the textbook The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th Edition, Keith L. Moore writes about the beginning of human development at fertilization and the beginning of a new human being. “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” He also explains the significance of the so-called zygote cell. “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

T.W. Sadler, in his book Langman’s Medical Embryology, 10th Edition, he writes, “Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the female gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.” As we saw from the quote above, the zygote is the beginning stage of a new, completely distinct human being.

In 2008, Keith L. Moore wrote in his most recent book Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th Edition. In it he bluntly states, “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.” There can be no question that life begins at the moment of fertilization. To make a clearer statement, National Geographic released a video in 2006 entitled The Biology of Prenatal Development. In the video it is stated, “Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization.” Below are expert testimonies relating to life’s beginning."

"When fertilization is complete, a unique genetic human entity exists."

C. Christopher Hook, M.D.Oncologist, Mayo Clinic, Director of Ethics Education, Mayo Graduate School of Medicine

"Science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man."
Jerome Lejeune, M.D., Ph.D.

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth Harvard University Medical School

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes University of Colorado Medical School

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
Professor Hymie Gordon Mayo Clinic

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

Now that there is no doubt that a human life begins at fertilization, the most common objection to ending abortion is that even though an embryo is technically alive at fertilization, it is still only a clump of cells. They also say that until the heart or brain are functioning, women should be free to have an abortion. That is where my next article will begin. Please come back soon to read my article on prenatal development. Thank you.

-Joel Varner

Morality and it's Justification in Theism

The existence of true, objective morality is one of the most important philosophical, ethical and personal questions which needs to be justifiably answered. The importance of justification is that many people have many different views about the same subject, especially when it comes to morality. I agree firmly that all people have the right to believe what they want. The problem is that many people believe things that have no evidence to support their beliefs. For example, when we look at many of the scientists and philosophers before the discovery of an absolute beginning of the universe, they believed that the universe was most likely eternal. But what was their justification for that belief? There wasn't any scientific proof for the universe being eternal. Even philosophically, they would not be able to justify their belief. But now, we look at science and philosophy and we see that the belief of a finite universe is justified. We can look at the Big Bang model, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and philosophically, we can see that it would be impossible to come to "today" if there were an infinate number of past events. So, believing in a beginning of our universe is a justifiable belief. Now the question is whether or not we can justifiably say that objective moral values either do exist or do not exist. I will be making the argument that objective moral values do, in fact, exist. I will also argue that the only justifiable explanation for objective moral values is God.

I will lay out my argument as follows:

1.) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

2.) Objective moral values do exist.

_______________________

3.) Therefore, God exists.

This is a logically valid argument and if premises (1) and (2) are true then the conclusion (3) must also be true. Now, let us look at the premises to see if they are true.

Premise (1): If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

By objective moral values I mean moral values which are true whether anyone believes them or not. They are valid and binding regardless of their acceptance from society. They would be an absolute standard of right and wrong, good and bad, ought and ought not. But are they truly objective? I strongly believe so, and hopefully I will provide the evidence to justify my belief.

The reason I say that objective moral values cannot exist without God is that there would be no standard for them to be valid and binding. Without God, morality is relative. So I could argue that if God does not exist, then even though you may not think it is good to beat a child, that is only your opinion. For a drunk, abusive father could think it perfectly okay to beat his child. And if your morality is relative, then you cannot say that him beating his child is wrong. It may be distasteful to you, but not to him. Again, we can look at slavery. If God does not exist, and objective moral values do not exist, then slavery isn't actually wrong. You may not like the idea of slavery, but that doesn't mean there is anything outside of you and a slave owner that could say slavery is a moral abomination. Or we can look at Nazi Germany. If God does not exists and objective moral values do not exist, then Hitler was justified in what he did to the Jews. After all, morality is relative in an atheistic worldview. How could an atheist say that Hitler was wrong? He thought he was right and carried out his beliefs. What he did may not be acceptable to our modern day society, but that doesn't mean he was actually wrong in what he did or that what he did was actually evil. So, in my opinion, without a moral Lawgiver, there are no objective morals. I find it interesting that so many atheists pass moral judgments. Many people, like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris say that Christianity is horribly wrong and evil. But where do these moral judments come from? They are not justifiable in an atheistic worldview. Nothing is really right or wrong. I really don't believe that atheists can truly live out their worldview when it comes to morality. If you are an atheist and someone pointed a gun to your head (which I don't condone, I'm just using an illustration) would you say, "I'd rather you not shoot me but it's not really wrong if you do. It's only my opinion that you shouldn't kill me,"? Or again, say you lived in Sodom in ancient times and a group of men came to rape you. Do you believe they would be justified in raping you because they believe it's okay?

Another argument I hear is that God and Christians are immoral for saying homosexuality is wrong. But where do their moral judgments come from? They don't want to be bound to the Christian view of morality, so why should Christians be bound to the atheists view of morality? Some may say that homosexuals don't have a choice in their sexuality so it's wrong to discriminate against them. I wholeheartedly agree that discriminating against homosexuals is wrong, but why? And something to think about, if you base your morality on societal tolerance and if homosexuality isn't wrong because they can't help it because their genetic make-up causes them to be that way, then why do we discriminate against pedophiles? Are they not born with a tendency to be sexually attracted to children? Even serial killers shouldn't be discriminated against on this view because they are born with a violent disposition.

Premise (2): Objective moral values do exist.

The case for objective moral values seems to be intrinsically obvious. I haven't met anyone on the street who thought raping children was only relatively wrong. But I have read works from atheist and have heard them lecture on morality. They argue that raping a child is, in fact, not wrong. It may not be socially advantagous, but there's no standard for raping a child being right or wrong, good or bad. Now, you must reflect on this question. Do you believe it is objectively (valid and binding) wrong to rape a child whether or not anyone else believes that it is?

We can also take the example of Nazi Germany. Hitler decided that it was okay to kill 6 million Jews because in his opinion, Jews were not really human. No matter what anyone may say, there is extremely strong evidence that Darwinian evolutionary theory influenced Hitler and helped to pursuade the masses in Germany. Hitler read works from Nietzsche about "the will to power" and from Darwin about "survival of the fittest." He was influenced by this theory in that he looked at the Jews as an inferior race which was hindering human evolutionary development. His idea of the "perfect man" came from his views of the "survival of the fittest," in which he viewed the Arian race as superior physically, genetically and mentally. He blamed all of the problems Germany was facing, whether it be economic problems or the spread of disease, on the Jews. On his view of morality, he was saving his country and his people from oppression and destruction by killing the Jews, the mentally and physically handicapped, the elderly, the weak, and homosexuals. He believed these people were poisoning and contaminating the genetic line of the Arian race.So based on his view of morality, he was being a moral person. And if there are no objective moral values, then we may say that he was wrong in his view of morality but saying that would be the same as someone saying "guacamole is disgusting." Morality, like your taste in certain foods, is relative in an atheistic worldview. In fact, atheists like Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins agree that morality is subjective. Peter Singer believes that we should be able to kill babies even up to 28 days after they are born. Where he gets that number I do not know. It would seem to me that killing a 35 year old person or a 28 day old person would be the same. Peter Singer also promotes euthanasia and the killing of the mentally and physically handicap. In his view, an adult ape is more valuable than a newborn or a handicapped person. "Afterall," he might say, "we are all just animals."

Another argument I hear which tries to dismiss objective moral values comes from sociobiologists. They assert that because moral beliefs are shaped by biological and social influences, that those beliefs are not objectively true. But this argument is fallacious because it commits the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is the fallacy of arguing that a belief is mistaken or false because of the way that belief originated. William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland state in their book, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, "how or why a belief came to be held is irrelevant to the truth of falsity of the proposition that is the object of that belief." Many atheists commit the genetic fallacy when discussing morality. But lets follow this argument for a little bit. If morality is only based on social influences then slavery wasn't truly wrong in the ancient world. Even Nazi Germany wouldn't be considered evil because in German society it was acceptable to kill Jews. In early American society it was acceptable to be racist and own slaves. Right now we say that racism is a horrible thing. But in an atheistic worldview, it's only horrible if you believe that it is horrible. So atheists cannot justifiably say that anything is really wrong according to their worldview. How can an atheist say, "you shouldn't be racist," or "you shouldn't kill people," and expect anyone to accept what they say if there isn't a true standard of "ought" or "ought not"?

Hopefuly, you do believe that the Nazi's were absolutely wrong in their persecution of the Jews. I hope you believe that even if Hitler succeeded what he set out to do and killed or brainwashed every one into believing what he did was right, it would still be absolutely wrong. I hope you believe that slavery and racism were wrong in early America, eventhough society said it was okay. I hope you believe that no matter what anyone else believes, raping children is objectively wrong.

Conclusion (3): Therefore, God exists.

As we have seen, if objective moral values do exist, then God must exist. I have shown that objective moral values do, in fact exist and that objective moral values cannot be justified on an atheistic worldview. If you believe it is always, objectively wrong to beat children, then you must agree that God exists. And if you believe God exists, then you are justified in believing objective moral values exist. It logically follows from this argument I have presented.

Thank you for taking the time to read this article and, as always, feel free to comment and raise objections about what you've read. Don't forget to read and think about the quotes by atheists and Christians on the subject of morality below this paragraph!!!!

Quotes from Atheists:

"If morality is always relative to one’s own society, then you, coming from your society, have your moral standards and I, coming from my society, have mine. It follows that when I criticize your moral standards, I am simply expressing the morality of my society, but it also follows that when you condemn me for criticizing the moral standards of your society, you are simply expressing the morality of your society. There is, on this view, no way of moving outside the morality of one’s own society and expressing a transcultural or objective moral judgment about anything, including respect for the cultures of different peoples. Hence if we happen to live in a culture that honors those who subdue other societies and suppress their cultures, then that is our morality, and the relativist can offer no cogent reason why we should not simply get on with it." — Peter Singer.

"The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval." — Peter Singer

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." — Richard Dawkins (emphasis mine)

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." — Richard Dawkins (emphasis mine. Notice how Dawkins says there is no evil and no good, only indifference, and yet says the God of the Old Testament is evil!)

Quotes from Christians:

"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." - G.K. Chesterton

"lf law is, in fact, some form of legislated morality. The question is whose morality will dominate." - Frank Schaeffer

"History is a voice forever sounding across the centuries the laws of right and wrong. Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on the tablets of eternity." - James A. Forude

"To denounce moralizing out of hand is to pronounce a moral judgment." - H.l. Mencken