There is a long standing debate that exists and it’s time DoubleThinkTank weighs in on the subject. That debate involves life. It’s very doubtful that anyone could argue that life should be denied. Granted, there are a few – the writer of this article, for example – who believe that there are occasions where life can be denied based on ones actions. The importance of life, however, should be apparent. The reason to clarify this stance on life is assist in determining how abortion should be treated. It’s a hot subject. It’s a touchy subject. But it’s a subject that warrants all of the opinions it can have. Opinions, though, only go so far. Realistically, the matter should be tackled as objectively as possible. For that purpose, my own ideology aside, the easiest way to quell an argument regarding when life begins – when a fetus becomes “viable” as a life – should be relatively simple. Life is not death. Something that is dead, is not alive. Something that is dead is inanimate. Inanimate things are not alive. Simple enough? Good. Common ground should arrive, then, when we can determine something is dead, inanimate, or otherwise without life. Modern medicine commonly accepts that human beings are “legally dead” when “heart and lungs have irreversibly ceased to function”. This means that something is dead when it cannot sustain its own heart and lung function. The “and” is a key in this statement because one or the other still operating without assistance removes the dead condition. We should be at a mutually agreeable point by now that a human being who is not dead, is alive. Let’s move on to when life starts then… Taking into consideration that when something is not dead, it is alive, it should be an incredibly reasonable conclusion to arrive at the understanding that life begins when “not dead” functions begin to take place. From conception, a human being is beginning to form. This is not to say that this forming human being is indeed a human for sure. There are a number of natural factors that could take place that prevent a conceived fetus from forming into anything that any level of science could establish as a “viable life”. However, it should be agreeable that the development of certain human functions will eliminate the “it’s not really a human” argument. Humans cannot conceive anything but humans. Being as we cannot conceive anything but humans, when the forming of human body functions begin to come into play… A human being has started to form. Next step: when should this forming human being become more than just potentially a “viable life”? Well… The heart begins beating in a fetus at three weeks 1. This covers one condition of our established agreement of “not dead”. At four weeks, the fetus now has developing lungs 2. Even though they have not begun functioning, developing lungs cannot be considered to have “irreversibly ceased to function”. The second means by which modern medicine considers a human being “legally dead” is now squashed as well. So. We have something forming that we know has the potential to become a human. This is beyond the point that the fetus is “only a mass of cells” because identifiable organs either have formed and/or are developing. These are separate cells that carry a separate function and are uniquely programmed for a job. We know that this has hit a point where the heart is functioning and the lungs are not in a state of irreversibly ceasing function. Likewise, we can identify a fetus to be a human being via the fact that it was conceived by and is being carried by humans, as well as DNA matching that of the human species. This is a human being that is not dead. A human being that is not dead, is alive. A living human being should not be denied life. Objectively speaking, the conclusion reached is that this is a living human inside beginning at the latest three weeks. Ignoring ideology and looking at only science and deductive reasoning, abortion should not take place after four weeks due to the fetus meeting the criteria of being a non-dead human being. I know a conclusion like this may go against the instincts of both sides of the fence. It contradicts my ideology. However, considering this is all about 50/50 on proponents vs opponents, a compromise will likely need to be met. This, to me, seems the most fair way to reach this compromise. Readers: feel free to weigh in on the matter.
-Mike H.