When I drove by Dublin Scioto High School in Dublin, Ohio the other day, I was surprised to see four teenage boys holding up anti-abortion signs just outside the school premises. These signs mainly contained pictures of fetuses which had allegedly been aborted. They also noted the group behind the protest was Created Equal. When I returned home, I decided to do some research on the seemingly anti-abortion group. Well, come to find out, there's nothing "seemingly" anti-abortion about Created Equal. They are anti-abortion through and through. Most of their members appear to be white, male, and you know the rest. The portion of the site which garnered my closest attention was its FAQ section. Given that, I thought I'd fact-check some of the group's claims.
1) Question: "No one really knows when life begins, so how can you say abortion is wrong?"
Created Equal's response: "The assertion that 'no one knows when life begins' disregards modern science. Leading embryologists, such as Drs. Keith L. Moore and T. V. N. Persaud in their embryology textbook The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, confirm that the life of a human being begins at fertilization. Moore and Persaud write, ''Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized totipotent cell (capable of giving rise to any cell type) marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.''¹ (Read statements by other embryologists.)
This is not a controversial statement based on ideology. It is merely good science to state that at fertilization a distinct, living, whole human is created. The zygote (entity formed by sperm-egg fusion) is distinct because it is not a part of mother or father. Both sperm and egg donated their genetic material to give rise to something genetically unique. The fact that the preborn are living is evidenced by growth, cellular reproduction, metabolism, reaction to stimuli. Further, because living things reproduce after their own kind, the preborn are human. And, they are not merely parts, like sperm or egg—whose capacity to do anything is defined by their role as parts of a greater body—but are entire (though immature) human beings."
Reality: Science can't ultimately decide when life begins, and ironically enough, if it weren't for science, anti-abortion activists would have less of an argument regarding the matter. As reported by Sarah Zhang of Wired:
"Roe v. Wade allows abortion up to the point a fetus is viable outside the womb. But that's not much help, either. When Edward Bell, a neonatologist at the University of Iowa Children’s Hospital, first began practicing medicine in the 70s, the line was 26 weeks. 'The threshold has decreased by one week for every decade,' Bell says. 'In the 90s we were all confident that 24 weeks was going to be absolute limit because of the biology.'
But earlier this year, Bell published a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine showing reasonably good outcomes in preemies born at 22 weeks of gestational age. Two key technologies have pushed that date: the use of steroids, which can speed up fetal development, and surfactants that prevent lungs from collapsing after birth. Still, setting an absolute cutoff for fetal viability is impossible. 'It depends on how you define it. Is it some babies survive? Half survive? Or most babies survive?' Bell says. At 22 weeks, many of the babies that survive end up with permanent health problems or disabilities.
Bell is wary of his research being appropriated by the debate over abortion. To doctors and scientists, the question of when life begins isn’t a matter of gathering more evidence. 'The science has very little to do with the answer,' says Gilbert. Every iteration and advance in the lab make the question even more the purview of philosophers and theologians. And lawyers."
2) Question: "Isn't abortion illegal after the first trimester?"
Created Equal's response: "This is a common misconception. Many are familiar with Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling of 1973 that made abortion legal in the United States. This ruling divided pregnancy into three trimesters, declaring that states have no right to restrict abortion in the first six months of pregnancy, but that in the final trimester a state would have a right, though not an obligation, to restrict abortion to cases in which the mother’s health is jeopardized. However, far fewer Americans are familiar with Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, handed down on the same day, which defined the mother’s 'health' so broadly that abortion became permissible throughout the duration of pregnancy. In Bolton, the court clarified that “health” must be defined 'in light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors relate to health.'¹
Following the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law trumps state law. By federal mandate, then, in the United States a woman is guaranteed access to abortion for virtually any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy."
Reality: As reported by the Guttmacher Institute, approximately 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester. Also, of the remaining 10% of abortions, the laws vary from state to state, which Created Equal omits from their answer. As a matter of fact, approximately 40% of states have banned later abortions, unless the woman's health is in jeopardy.
3) "This is a woman's issue. Men can't get pregnant. Why should they have a say?"
Created Equal's response: "Why do men who favor abortion get to have an opinion but those opposed to it do not? If men shouldn’t have an opinion on abortion, then Roe v. Wade should be reversed. Not only was the majority decision written by a man (Justice Harry Blackmun), but not a single woman sat on the Supreme Court at the time.
As Francis Beckwith has said, arguments don’t have genders; people do. What matters is not the gender of the person making an argument but the validity of their position. To attack a pro-life individual because he is male is an ad hominem logical fallacy and avoids what really matters: his case for the personhood of the preborn."
Reality: Sure, men can hold opinions on the matter, as protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. However, at the end of the day, it's the woman's decision. To deny that is to deny human anatomy, and with that, you know, reality. Once women garner a majority of control in Congress, we'll see how men react when the former proposes restrictions on what the latter can do with their manhoods. Yeah, that'll go over well...
4) Question: "Are you saying women should go to jail if they have an abortion?"
Created Equal's response: "If abortion were criminalized, women who had abortions previously would not face legal consequences because there was no state-respected law in place at the time. However, if a law were put in place, punishment would vary depending upon culpability—just as it does for other crimes. Not all women who kill their born children face the same punishment. Some are imprisoned, while others receive lesser judgments based on the circumstances.
In the same way that a court of law determines culpability and appropriate consequences for women who kill their born children, consequences for abortions would be determined on a case by case basis. Nevertheless, once there is a law recognizing and protecting the personhood of the preborn, it is entirely consistent to hold that those who break this law should be held responsible. But just as there is first, second, and third degree murder, so there would be varying levels of culpability for those who commit an abortion—from mothers and fathers to abortionists and their staff."
Reality: Really? So if a man rapes a woman, not only physically, but with that, mentally, emotionally, and psychologically as well, and the woman opts to have an abortion, it's possible she may be the one in jail and not the man who raped her? That thinking is so backwards and twisted, not even a gymnast named Gumby could make sense of it in the 17th century.
5) Question: "What about birth control?"
Created Equal's response: "True contraceptives prevent fertilization from taking place, which is different from the larger category of “birth control”. While all contraceptives are considered a method of birth control, not all types of birth control are contraceptives. Some types of birth control act as abortifacients, in which the primary role may be to prevent conception while a backup early abortion results in case that fails.
These methods vary in frequency and likelihood to cause abortions, and the research is somewhat debatable. We urge erring on the side of caution since it is wrong to kill a preborn child surgically or chemically."
Reality: Increased birth control (A) decreases unwanted pregnancies (B). A decrease in unwanted pregnancies (B) leads to a decrease in abortions (C). Therefore, an increase in birth control (A) leads to a decrease in abortion (C). Transitive property. :: mic drop ::
Look, I could go on and on with rebuttals to most of Created Equal's claims, but I'll stop here. Abortion is a highly divisive issue, but groups like Created Equal do a disservice to individuals who call themselves "pro-life," to comprehensive education and awareness regarding the issue, and most of all, to women. Abortion isn't a black-and-white issue like Created Equal and their ilk like to paint it. I don't know anybody who runs around the neighborhood, screaming, as they hold signs which read, "I F*cking Love Abortion!" As polls indicate, most people identify as "pro-choice," but to an extent. In other words, in an ideal world, we'd actually like to see the number of abortions decrease, yet with that, also not infringe on the rights of women. How do we do that? Through comprehensive education and easy access to contraception/birth control. Why? If need be, look again at the before-mentioned transitive property, and with that, the mic drop.
http://www.createdequal.org/faqs/
https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2011/second-trimester-abortions-concentrated-among-certain-groups-women
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions
https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/access-to-free-birth-control-reduces-abortion-rates/
1) Question: "No one really knows when life begins, so how can you say abortion is wrong?"
Created Equal's response: "The assertion that 'no one knows when life begins' disregards modern science. Leading embryologists, such as Drs. Keith L. Moore and T. V. N. Persaud in their embryology textbook The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, confirm that the life of a human being begins at fertilization. Moore and Persaud write, ''Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized totipotent cell (capable of giving rise to any cell type) marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.''¹ (Read statements by other embryologists.)
This is not a controversial statement based on ideology. It is merely good science to state that at fertilization a distinct, living, whole human is created. The zygote (entity formed by sperm-egg fusion) is distinct because it is not a part of mother or father. Both sperm and egg donated their genetic material to give rise to something genetically unique. The fact that the preborn are living is evidenced by growth, cellular reproduction, metabolism, reaction to stimuli. Further, because living things reproduce after their own kind, the preborn are human. And, they are not merely parts, like sperm or egg—whose capacity to do anything is defined by their role as parts of a greater body—but are entire (though immature) human beings."
Reality: Science can't ultimately decide when life begins, and ironically enough, if it weren't for science, anti-abortion activists would have less of an argument regarding the matter. As reported by Sarah Zhang of Wired:
"Roe v. Wade allows abortion up to the point a fetus is viable outside the womb. But that's not much help, either. When Edward Bell, a neonatologist at the University of Iowa Children’s Hospital, first began practicing medicine in the 70s, the line was 26 weeks. 'The threshold has decreased by one week for every decade,' Bell says. 'In the 90s we were all confident that 24 weeks was going to be absolute limit because of the biology.'
But earlier this year, Bell published a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine showing reasonably good outcomes in preemies born at 22 weeks of gestational age. Two key technologies have pushed that date: the use of steroids, which can speed up fetal development, and surfactants that prevent lungs from collapsing after birth. Still, setting an absolute cutoff for fetal viability is impossible. 'It depends on how you define it. Is it some babies survive? Half survive? Or most babies survive?' Bell says. At 22 weeks, many of the babies that survive end up with permanent health problems or disabilities.
Bell is wary of his research being appropriated by the debate over abortion. To doctors and scientists, the question of when life begins isn’t a matter of gathering more evidence. 'The science has very little to do with the answer,' says Gilbert. Every iteration and advance in the lab make the question even more the purview of philosophers and theologians. And lawyers."
2) Question: "Isn't abortion illegal after the first trimester?"
Created Equal's response: "This is a common misconception. Many are familiar with Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling of 1973 that made abortion legal in the United States. This ruling divided pregnancy into three trimesters, declaring that states have no right to restrict abortion in the first six months of pregnancy, but that in the final trimester a state would have a right, though not an obligation, to restrict abortion to cases in which the mother’s health is jeopardized. However, far fewer Americans are familiar with Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, handed down on the same day, which defined the mother’s 'health' so broadly that abortion became permissible throughout the duration of pregnancy. In Bolton, the court clarified that “health” must be defined 'in light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors relate to health.'¹
Following the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law trumps state law. By federal mandate, then, in the United States a woman is guaranteed access to abortion for virtually any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy."
Reality: As reported by the Guttmacher Institute, approximately 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester. Also, of the remaining 10% of abortions, the laws vary from state to state, which Created Equal omits from their answer. As a matter of fact, approximately 40% of states have banned later abortions, unless the woman's health is in jeopardy.
3) "This is a woman's issue. Men can't get pregnant. Why should they have a say?"
Created Equal's response: "Why do men who favor abortion get to have an opinion but those opposed to it do not? If men shouldn’t have an opinion on abortion, then Roe v. Wade should be reversed. Not only was the majority decision written by a man (Justice Harry Blackmun), but not a single woman sat on the Supreme Court at the time.
As Francis Beckwith has said, arguments don’t have genders; people do. What matters is not the gender of the person making an argument but the validity of their position. To attack a pro-life individual because he is male is an ad hominem logical fallacy and avoids what really matters: his case for the personhood of the preborn."
Reality: Sure, men can hold opinions on the matter, as protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. However, at the end of the day, it's the woman's decision. To deny that is to deny human anatomy, and with that, you know, reality. Once women garner a majority of control in Congress, we'll see how men react when the former proposes restrictions on what the latter can do with their manhoods. Yeah, that'll go over well...
4) Question: "Are you saying women should go to jail if they have an abortion?"
Created Equal's response: "If abortion were criminalized, women who had abortions previously would not face legal consequences because there was no state-respected law in place at the time. However, if a law were put in place, punishment would vary depending upon culpability—just as it does for other crimes. Not all women who kill their born children face the same punishment. Some are imprisoned, while others receive lesser judgments based on the circumstances.
In the same way that a court of law determines culpability and appropriate consequences for women who kill their born children, consequences for abortions would be determined on a case by case basis. Nevertheless, once there is a law recognizing and protecting the personhood of the preborn, it is entirely consistent to hold that those who break this law should be held responsible. But just as there is first, second, and third degree murder, so there would be varying levels of culpability for those who commit an abortion—from mothers and fathers to abortionists and their staff."
Reality: Really? So if a man rapes a woman, not only physically, but with that, mentally, emotionally, and psychologically as well, and the woman opts to have an abortion, it's possible she may be the one in jail and not the man who raped her? That thinking is so backwards and twisted, not even a gymnast named Gumby could make sense of it in the 17th century.
5) Question: "What about birth control?"
Created Equal's response: "True contraceptives prevent fertilization from taking place, which is different from the larger category of “birth control”. While all contraceptives are considered a method of birth control, not all types of birth control are contraceptives. Some types of birth control act as abortifacients, in which the primary role may be to prevent conception while a backup early abortion results in case that fails.
These methods vary in frequency and likelihood to cause abortions, and the research is somewhat debatable. We urge erring on the side of caution since it is wrong to kill a preborn child surgically or chemically."
Reality: Increased birth control (A) decreases unwanted pregnancies (B). A decrease in unwanted pregnancies (B) leads to a decrease in abortions (C). Therefore, an increase in birth control (A) leads to a decrease in abortion (C). Transitive property. :: mic drop ::
Look, I could go on and on with rebuttals to most of Created Equal's claims, but I'll stop here. Abortion is a highly divisive issue, but groups like Created Equal do a disservice to individuals who call themselves "pro-life," to comprehensive education and awareness regarding the issue, and most of all, to women. Abortion isn't a black-and-white issue like Created Equal and their ilk like to paint it. I don't know anybody who runs around the neighborhood, screaming, as they hold signs which read, "I F*cking Love Abortion!" As polls indicate, most people identify as "pro-choice," but to an extent. In other words, in an ideal world, we'd actually like to see the number of abortions decrease, yet with that, also not infringe on the rights of women. How do we do that? Through comprehensive education and easy access to contraception/birth control. Why? If need be, look again at the before-mentioned transitive property, and with that, the mic drop.
http://www.createdequal.org/faqs/
https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2011/second-trimester-abortions-concentrated-among-certain-groups-women
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions
https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/access-to-free-birth-control-reduces-abortion-rates/
Comments
Post a Comment