promoted by Rosi
In the recent Senate Debate, Jeff Bell said the following:
“Certainly, women have bodies, and I respect that… They need to protect their bodies. But unborn babies have bodies, too. Cory Booker was once a one-cell zygote. And a one-cell zygote grows up to be a human being.”
Baby Center notes that between 30 and 50 percent of all fertilization — the creation of a zygote — are flushed out in the normal menstrual process before anyone knows they are pregnant.
Of known pregnancies, 20 percent are lost to miscarriage in the first three months. That means that the best case between 36 and 60 percent of all zygotes are lost within 12 weeks of fertilization.
But why stop at fertilization? Why not talk about sperm and eggs and say that they “grow up to be human beings.”
The Bible supports this view. Genesis 38:9 damns Onan for “spilling his seed” and preventing a pregnancy with his brother’s widow.
According to Bell, the fact that a zygote could become a human is enough to ban abortion. But it’s just as “scientific” to say that a percentage of a women’s unfertilized eggs “grow up to be human beings” as it is to say that their fertilized eggs do the same.
It’s a smaller percentage, but the possibility is still there. We’ve already established what the criteria for forcing a woman to be pregnant is — the potential for a new human life — so why stop at forcing a woman to complete the process when a zygote is formed by chance? Why not forcibly fertilize those eggs instead of allowing women to menstruate? After all, that egg could have grown up to be a person just like a zygote could!
This is why the idea that the “scientific fact” that part of the process of creating a new person includes a zygote should have no bearing on a logical argument against abortion. The fertilization of an egg is only a step along the way of the process, and often a failed step.
You can start earlier and demand women subject themselves to unprotected sex any time their male partner demands — and the number of people who believes this is higher than you think — to increase the number of pregnancies and births.
You can start later and put the mark at viability outside the womb.
You can start even later, and allow it to save the life of the mother at any time prior to birth.
I’m not arguing for any of these positions, just noting that from a “scientific” basis they’re all equal.
Every single position when it comes to abortion is about a point along the process for creating a new human. There is no “start” to it where you can draw a bright line like Jeff Bell wants to. It’s gray at best, and mostly a matter of opinion.
And that’s why anti-abortion arguments claiming to be based on science are idiotic at best and disingenuous at worst.