Well said! You and Anduril23 are on the mark. The reason that these questions go unresolved is that the basic question is never answered. Philosophical discussions take place at three different levels. The first is the mos basic, theoretical level, which many might find dry, but it also answers the ultimate questions. The second level is the more subjective level, which is addressed in the arts. The third is the every day examples and "kitchen table talk" that usually takes place in these debates in columns, talk radio, etc. These discussions invariably revolve around political issues, strategies and name-calling, such as "paternalistic" and "fanatics", "right-wingers", "antiabortionists", etc.
In this case, though it may sound like old hat to many, the basic question is still whether the embryo and fetus are nascent human beings. If they are, then they deserve the full protection of the law, and there is actually no "right" of "choice" which can be conferred by any judicial or legislative body to take the life of another human being. There are many types of arguments one can advance - tragic circumstances, economic hardship, etc., to promote abortion, but they all sidestep the basic question of whether the developing entity is a human being. In a very small nutshell, can anyone provide a qualitative beginning to life other than conception? After fertilization, the various stages of development fade into one another just like the other stages of life. When does an "infant" become a "child". When does a "child" become an "adolescent" then an "adult". By the same token, when does a zygote become an embryo, then a fetus? When does the first heartbeat occur? When does the first brainwave occur, or are these a continuum of development? The logical formulation for such an argument is "either A or B, not B, therefore A". In the absence of any clear line of demarcation (B) between "human" and "non-human" after fertilization, then A (human life begins at fertilization) must stand. Thus, the "blob of tissue" isn't a "potential human life", but a human life with potential! It is the mother of all ironies that we are so concerned about the possibility of elimination some endangered gnat or weed in the Amazon basin in the name of preserving genetic biodiversity, but we have no compunction at all about eliminating the minds that might make use of the biodiversity for the benefit of humankind.
Another principle is the bioethical issue of informed consent. Those who promote unrestrained autonomy in health care demand complete and informed consent so that they can make an informed decision about any procedure or treatment they are about to undergo. Yet, it appears that many of these same people want to shield pregnant mothers from the reality of what they are about to undergo, lest they change their minds, because the "procedure is too gruesome", or because they might actually think the entities in their wombs are actually babies and bond with them. This is inconsistent at best and hypocritical at worst.
Yet another principle cherished by abortion proponents is the "privacy of a woman's relationship with her doctor". What people do not talk about is that abortions are essentially never done by the woman's own doctor. As a physician myself, I have had female patients tell me of their experiences in abortion clinics where they are herded together in a waiting room, then processed through like cattle going through an assembly line, by a doctor who comes in from out of town and has had no prior contact at all with these women.
We should insist on still another principle, namely equality of treatment. That is, abortionists should be accountable for following up their own patients and managing complications, such as hemorrhage, infection and perforated uterus, uterine scarring and infertility and management of psychological and emotional sequelae. What I have seen in emergency medicine is women with all these complications, and the abortionist back in his home town and unavailable. The typical situation is for the woman to undergo the procedure and have a prescription or two stuck in her hand on the way out the door. If abortionists are regarded as legitimate physicians, then why are they not held to the same exacting standards as the rest of us, who can be sued at the drop of a hat?
Although many might make light of the psychological aftereffects of abortion, they do affect many, many women. These unfortunate women grieve at the child's would-have-been birthdays, graduation dates, holidays. They are often haunted by nightmares, depression, self-inflicted punishment, family conflicts resulting from suppressed guilt and other emotions, substance abuse, etc. Family members also grieve for the siblings, grandchildren, cousins, uncles or aunts they never had, or never knew they would have had if they had been told the truth. If anyone doubts this, they should read the book Abortion Changes You.
Then there is the financial cost of abortion. Many say that babies who would likely be born into poor social environments should be aborted because of the cost of supporting them. In Politically Correct Death, by Francis Beckwith, the average, per capita, gross lifetime income is approximately $2 million ($50,000 per year x 40 yrs employment). If we multiply that by the number of abortions since the passage of Roe v. Wade in 1973, 45,000,000, we arrive at a staggering $90 TRILLION dollars we have aborted out of our GNP. Wouldn't that come in handy about now? Is that included in the "informed consent" given to pregnant women at abortion clinics? It seems that the unintended consequences of "a woman's individual right to choose" go far beyond her individual self.
Though it would be very possible to write much more on this topic, it is evident that the major sticking point is still that human (and all other sexually reproduced) life begins at conception, and thus deserves protection from that point on, and that political and frankly slanderous assertions to the contrary fall flat.
