Think About It

I am usually pretty good at not biting at internet click bait, but the one topic that always hooks me is, who is the best quarterback in the history of the National Football League? Now, most lists put Tom Brady at the top, and I agree with that, but trust me when I tell you that my opinion has nothing to do with the fact that I was born and raised in New England and have been a lifelong Patriots fan, because it is as they say, “settled science.” However, I still enjoy debating the issue. Maybe it is Joe Montana, or Payton Manning, or someone from a previous era that I never got to see play or was not old enough to appreciate? Otto Graham or Johnny Unitas perhaps? What is the criterion we are using? Is it the most Super Bowl Championships or the most MVP Awards? Because it makes a difference. Now, I am a little more than a casual fan, but I am not a football historian or fanatic, but I have no qualms about letting everyone know what my opinion is, regardless of how uninformed or biased it may be.

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion and sharing it with others, but not all topics are created equal. Sure, people can get emotional debating who the best quarterback in the history of the NFL is, but it is a fun and meaningless subject. So, do not hesitate to join the debate and throw in your two cents. However, there are other topics on which you might want to avoid weighing in on. Investment or retirement advice for example. If you do not know what you are talking about, do not be so quick to give your opinion or dispense advice. It is someone’s life and financial security about which you are talking. It is not a topic for amateurs. Relationships is another tricky subject that you might want to avoid, unless it is someone you know very well, care deeply about, and they specifically ask for your opinion.

In the arena of public discourse, there is one topic on which most people seem to have a very strong opinion, and that is abortion. It is a subject that is extremely contentious and emotional, but if you engage with someone on either side of the issue, and truly try to understand their point of view, you quickly discover that most of their opinions are uninformed and not very well thought out. Most people cannot speak about abortion with any knowledge or insight and are unable to articulate what they believe and why they believe it. Their responses are sound bites and talking points from whatever side of the issue they happen to be on, and their reactions when asked to explain their position are reflexive and preprogrammed.

Abortion is not something that should be debated in the local sports pub. It is a very serious issue that literally determines life and death. People should not be so quick to join the debate or give their opinion unless they truly understand the issues and have thoroughly thought them through. However, if you want to be able to address the question of abortion in an intelligent and rational manner, the three concepts you need to be able to comprehend and discuss are life, personhood, and the hierarchy of rights.

Abortion is the termination of a human pregnancy resulting in the death of an embryo or fetus. That is what it is and that is how it is defined. But what is being terminated? Is it a life?

Life is that which differentiates organic from inorganic matter, or a living organism from a non-living or dead organism. It is a state of animation characterized by the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. Does this definition accurately describe an embryo or fetus? Yes, it does because embryos and fetuses metabolize, grow, react to stimuli, and undergo the cell division and reproduction which are unique to living organisms. Additionally, an embryo or fetus contains human DNA, which makes it a human life. Therefore, an abortion terminates a human life.

An embryo or fetus may be a human life, but do the qualities of being alive and being of human origin automatically endow a human life with human rights? Well, we know that people have human rights. So, the question becomes is personhood and inherent characteristic of human life?

This is where most of the differences of opinion emerge and why the topic of abortion is so contentious. We are all people, but somehow, we are unable to come to a consensus on the definition of a person. Most of those who support abortion, either knowingly or unknowingly, subscribe to John Locke’s definition of a person which is, “a thinking intelligent being that has reason and reflection and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places.” However, Locke’s definition is inadequate and lacking.

Locke defines a person in terms of abilities, as in having the ability to reason and reflect. However, there are people who we can all agree are people that do not have these abilities. Infants, individuals with severe developmental disabilities, and perhaps even those with advanced Alzheimer’s or dementia. They are unquestionably people, but they may not possess those abilities that Locke says makes them a person.

There is a more classic definition that defines a person as an individual substance of a rational nature. In this definition, “of a rational nature” does not denote ability. It refers to the essence or essential properties of a thing. So, anything of which rationality is essential property, is a person. While this definition is certainly more expansive and inclusive than Locke’s definition, it too may be inadequate. It could apply to other forms of intelligence either on this planet or elsewhere in the universe if they exist, which may be fine, but what is a substance? Is artificial intelligence a substance? We live in an age where technology is beginning to blur the boundaries between what is human and what is not. We need a more concise and applicable definition. A more apt definition might be an individual living organism of a rational nature.

Is an embryo or fetus a living organism of a rational nature? Yes, they are because rationality is an essential property of being human, and an embryo or fetus is a human life. Therefore, personhood is an innate property of human life, and an embryo or fetus are endowed with human rights.

We all possess human rights that are inalienable and inherent in our human nature. In other words, we all have human rights that cannot be taken away from us and that we are entitled to because we are human beings or people. However, what happens when the human rights of two individuals are at odds with each other? What happens when the exercise of one person’s human rights infringes upon the rights of another person? How do we determine whose rights take precedent?

There is a hierarchy of rights. Rights are either conditional or absolute. Most of our rights are conditional. That is, we have the right to exercise them on the condition that they do not infringe upon the rights of someone else. I have the right to listen to my music as loud as I want, but I do not have the right to keep my neighbor up at night. I have the right to smoke, but I do not have the right to expose others to the dangers of my secondhand smoke. Therefore, my right to smoke can be restricted or temporarily suspended, and I can be prohibited from smoking on an airplane or in a restaurant.

Even our rights guaranteed by the Constitution are conditional. For example, a journalist has the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. They are expressly enumerated in and protected by the First Amendment. However, they are not absolute. If a journalist had a story that was going to infringe upon another person’s rights to due process and a fair trial, which are also protected by the Constitution, a judge can issue a gag order and prohibit the journalist from publishing the story. Then, when the trial is over, the gag ordered can be lifted and the journalist’s rights restored.

The critical concept to grasp here is that the rights may be temporarily suspended or denied, but can in fact, be restored. However, there is one human right that is absolute because once it has been denied it can never be restored, and that is the right to life. The right to life is atop the hierarchy of our human rights and cannot be infringed upon or denied by the exercise of anyone else’s rights, including a woman’s right to choose.

An embryo or fetus is a human life, personhood is an inherent characteristic of human life, and an abortion infringes upon a human life’s absolute right to life. That is my opinion. It is a well thought out and rational opinion, but it is still only an opinion. Others may disagree. They may have a different definition of a person or reject the hierarchy of rights, but that too, is only an opinion.

The abortion debate is not about mere differences of opinions. We a not debating whether Super Bowl rings are more important than MVP trophies. What we are debating irrevocably impacts the lives and rights of two people. The mother, and her right to live her life and pursue happiness and the manner that she chooses, and an unborn human life and its inalienable right to life. It does not matter what side of the debate you are on, simply holding signs and shouting slogans is not good enough. If you are going to have an opinion it needs to be an informed and well thought out opinion. You need to understand what you believe and why you believe it.

The abortion debate, like any debate of meaning and substance, should take us down the path of knowledge towards truth. But be warned, it is a difficult and arduous journey, that just may lead you to a truth that many would rather ignore.