Well…is it?   Really, any other argument, point, fact, issue or topic is absolutely irrelevant to the debate as I will demonstrate below.  This divisive, painful and avoided question is both the alpha and the omega of one of the most fundamental defining choices confronting mankind.  Think I am over-stated it or being melodramatic?  Then consider that if the answer is ’yes’, we are condoning (and subsidizing) the gruesome, agonizing murder of the most innocent and helpless of human beings (and trafficking in their body parts).  If the answer is ‘yes’, we as a society support killing babies.  If it sounds harsh to be put so bluntly, that’s too bad.  Euphemisms like ‘terminating a pregnancy’ allow people to hide from the real question.  On the other hand, if the answer is ‘no’, then there’s no problem and abortion could be fully embraced, even as a form of retroactive birth control.  Why not?  If it’s not murder, then it’s nothing.  Big deal. 

But the question needs to be asked and, in discussing the matter, we should not deviate into tangential arguments that are meaningless given the underlying issue.

A colleague recently expressed hatred and derision toward a politician based on his pro-life stance.  The conversation went as follows:

Jane: He wants to take away a woman’s right to choose.

DM: To choose what?

Jane: What we can do with our own bodies.

DM: Lots of laws do that.  You can’t punch someone in the nose because they are in your way.

Jane: We’re not talking about hurting someone else, it’s our body and we have the right to decide whether we want to be pregnant or not.

DM: So a fetus doesn’t qualify as someone else?

Jane: No.

DM: How do you know?  What if you are wrong?

Jane: You’re just a typical male who wants to subvert the rights women have struggled so hard for.

DM: Like the right to randomly decide, based on nothing, that the unborn child growing inside you doesn’t count as a person, for example?

Jane: @#*! you.

           *******************************************************************************************

Unfortunately for me, that wasn’t the end of the hornet’s nest I had stirred up for another colleague had overheard the latter part of the conversation and he chose to swoop in and attack.  Meet John (whose real name is Kevin, but he seems to go to the bathroom about 20 times a day…and it’s a long stay each time).  Although, admittedly, my last question to Jane was a little rough, I have never claimed to have the answer to the paramount question.  Both Jane and John (obviously not their real names) both assumed I was approaching the conversation in a combative stance since that is generally the way the debate shakes down.  However, I stuck to the method of Socrates (more fun if you pronounce it So-crates) and simply asked questions in order to lead them to the fundamental issue.

John started in with the second talking point of those in the so-called ‘pro-choice’ camp.  It is one that is generally considered a debate-ender and under which many so-called ‘pro-lifers’ waffle.  Mmmm…waffle.

John: So you are Mr. Big Pro-Choice right winger, hey?

DM: Who me?  I’m just asking questions, here.

John: Right.  And a coward too who won’t admit it.

DM: Nothing to admit, but I wouldn’t recommend calling ME the coward in this conversation since you haven’t had the courage to honestly mull over this whole issue.

John: Whatever, you’re such a hypocrite.  If you knocked up some girl you just met, you would want her to keep the baby?

DM: What a boring and stupid hypothetical question.  And yes, I suppose I would.  But the question should be asked to her, not me since I am not the one with the option to go to the clinic.

John: Ok, so what if some girl gets raped and becomes pregnant?  Or what about incest?  You’re saying she should be forced to keep the baby?  (At this point the smug smiles appeared)

DM:  I’m not saying anything.  You tell me…should she?

John: Of course not.

DM: Why?

John:  Because she was raped you assh*le.

DM:  Horrible, I agree.  Disgusting, vile and despicable.

John:  Yet you said she should be forced to keep the baby.

DM: What baby?

John: The baby she is pregnant with!

DM: She is pregnant with a baby?!

John: What are you talking about?

DM: Well if it’s a baby, should she be allowed to end it’s life?

John: It’s not a baby, you know what I meant.

DM: What is it then.

John: A fetus.

DM: That’s not a baby though?

John: No.

DM: How do you know?  Are you sure?

John: @#*! you.

DM: I’m just asking questions.  I think it would be the most unimaginable horrible situation for a woman to find herself in, but that is irrelevant to whether or not having an abortion is still murder, no?

               *******************************************************************************************

At this point things were getting really nasty and heated.  Well, for John and Jane anyway.  I still didn’t have a dog in the fight, I was just asking questions.  I got through the John part with my humor still in tact because he was sportin’ a really gross boogie in his nose the whole time.  He got it during the next clip though…which was even funnier, because at first it was on his finger and he tried a few times to subtlely flick it but it stuck and he ended up wiping in on his pants.

But I digress.  Since John had raised his voice as he often does when he’s actually awake in the office, others had overheard the tail end of the conversation and decided to join in the fun.  Incidentally, I don’t have any friends at work anymore.  Shame how making people ask themselves tough questions that rattle their safe world view tends to make one a pariah.  At any rate, Don (Liquid Lunch) decided to jump in and show-off how much he had learned from Law and Order reruns.

LL: It’s not murder, and even if it was it is justifiable (hiccup)

DM: So it might be murder?

LL: Justifiable homicide.

DM: So it is homicide?

LL: For the sake of argument, let’s say it is.

DM: Well is it or isn’t it?

LL: It’s not, but even if it is…

DM: Well if it’s not, then no problem right?

LL/John/Jane: Right!

DM: So you know for sure it’s not?

LL: Yes.

DM: How?

LL: …

LL: …

DM: Is the baby or fetus or whatever a living human?

LL: No.

DM: How do you know?

LL: Ok, so maybe it is.  But it’s justifiable to have an abortion.

DM: Why?

LL: Because she never wanted to get pregnant or even have sex.

DM: What’s that got to do with whether killing the resulting baby is ok or not?

LL: Cuz a rape victim shouldn’t have to carry a baby that results from rape.

DM: That’s pretty circular.  Is the baby somehow complicit in it’s arrival?

LL: Obviously not.

DM: Yet, despite the fact that it is completely innocent, it should be killed?

LL: You’re being an assh*le?

DM: How, by asking you questions?

LL: Look, she shouldn’t have to carry it.  End of story.  It’s for the health of the mother.

DM: You mean the mental health?

BP: Yes.

DM: How so?

BP: Because the baby reminds her of the rape or incest.

DM: So there is equivalency between the need to relieve her of this and the value of a baby’s life?

BP: You’re a pig, you can’t imagine what that would be like.

DM: That’s true.  Horrible as I said.  Now, answer the question.  Is the life of a baby expendable if it is extinguished in order to protect a woman from serious emotional distress.

BP: Yes.

DM: What about if she found out 2 years after the child was born that it was fathered by the rapist?

BP: You’re being an idiot.

DM: That baby would also cause emotional distress.  Is it expendable?

BP: That’s different. 

DM: What about where sex was consensual and pregnancy accidental?  Is there justification for abortion there?

LL: …

LL: Ok, well  what about where the life of the mother hangs in the balance.  You think abortion is wrong there, too don’t you.

DM: Is it?

LL: Of course not!

DM: Why?

LL: So a woman should have to die in order to save her baby?

DM: Most would.

LL: WHAT?

DM: Do you think most women, given Sophie’s Choice, would opt to die rather than have their baby die?

LL: grrrrr…we aren’t talking about a baby here.

DM: You just asked whether a woman should have to die in order to save her baby, didn’t you?

LL:  I meant fetus.

DM: Once again…is it alive?  Is it human?  If it’s not a baby, what is it?  Etc.

LL:  I can’t believe you think a woman who would be killed by childbirth should have to go through it anyway.

DM:  I am just asking questions here, I never stated that as a position.  What I said was, once you accept that it is alive and a human choosing to abort is simply exchanging a life for a life.  Do you disagree?

LL: A-ha, I never said it was a life.

DM: Yes you did.  You said that it was ok to kill a baby that reminded a woman of a traumatic event.

LL: grrr…

DM: I am just pointing out that the circumstances of its arrival and the potential psychological or physical trauma present as a result of its existence are completely irrelevent to whether it is a human life.  If it is a human life, intentionally ending that life is homicide.  Whether it is justifiable is the question.  Is it?

LL: Yes.

DM: Because of the trauma?

LL: Yes.

DM: But this doesn’t apply to babies that have been born or people in general…you can’t justify killing a 2 month old because of trauma? 

LL: No.

DM: That isn’t logical given that you accepted that a pre-born baby is a human life.

LL: Oh ya, well what about when someone is going to kill you?  Or battered wife syndrome where the taking of a life is justified because without doing so you would die yourself?

DM: What about it?

LL:  It proves that preserving your life at the expense of another is ok.

DM: So a baby is intentionally choosing to cause harm to the mother?

LL:  No…but…

DM: Isn’t that intention what makes self-defense laws? 

LL:…

DM: I’m not saying a mother who is at risk of dying during childbirth should have to go through with it, I am just pointing out that the choice being made is one life over another. 

LL: It’s a woman’s right to choose.

DM: To choose what? 

LL: @#*! you.

               *******************************************************************************************

As you may well imagine, things were bordering on boiling over at this point.  All I was doing was asking questions.  Sure, they may be tough questions that people aren’t usually asked or don’t usually ask themselves…but they are fair and legitimate to the debate.  It occurred to me as this unfolded, that I found it really disturbing that such powerful positions and beliefs were held on such a crucial issue, without the slightest bit of internal analysis having been undertaken.   It also occurred to me that a lot of people use nasty language when the feel cornered or pressed.  I’m surprised I didn’t get punched. 

Next up was a department manager, Blue Pants (he only wears blue pants…ever.  Probably even in the shower).  Things were getting dicey, but I decided to go with it just for fun.

BP: Stirring up the pot again I see.  Don’t you people have work to do?

DM: Not really, the recession has really reduced my workload.

BP: You’re pushing it.

DM: It’s lunch, we’re just talking.

BP: Ya, the whole office heard.  So anti-abortion are you?

DM: What makes you say that?

BP: I overheard.

DM: I’m just asking questions.

BP: So I suppose you think killing abortion doctors is ok.

DM: Why do you suppose that?

BP: That’s what all you anti-abortionists secretly believe isn’t it?

DM: Since when am I an anti-abortionist, I’m just asking questions.  Do you think killing abortion doctors is ok?

BP: Certainly not.

DM: Can  you understand how some might?

BP: How you might, you mean.

DM: No, I don’t.  But I understand why some do.  Do you?

BP: No.  Murder is wrong.

DM: Murder is wrong?

BP: Obviously murder is wrong.

DM: Define murder.

BP: I dunno, the intentional killing of another human being.

DM: Is abortion murder?

BP: No.

DM: How do you know?  What makes you so sure?

BP: You’re not going to lure me into some logic trap.

DM: Is that what I’m trying to do?

BP: Obviously.

DM: All I’m doing is asking simple questions.

BP: It’s not murder because it’s not a human being.

DM: What’s not?

BP: A fetus. 

DM: What is it, then?

BP: It’s an embryo, then a fetus.

DM: Then what?

BP: What?

DM: What is it after it’s a fetus?

BP: …a baby.

DM: A human baby?

BP:  Duh. 

DM: Just clarifying.  So at conception, it’s just an embryo?

BP: Yes.

DM: Then it grows and at some point it’s named changes to fetus?

BP: At some point.

DM: But we don’t know what point it changes from embryo to fetus?

BP: Whatever, I’m sure there’s a defined time when that happens…as soon as a certain number of cell divisions have taken place or something.

DM: But at some point it goes from embryo to fetus.  Then at some point it becomes a baby?  A human baby?

BP: I just said that.

DM: Ok, so when does it become a human baby?

BP: When it’s born alive.

DM: So upon birth a fetus goes from a non-human state…a fetus…to human?

BP: Yes.

DM: I guess that means President Obama supports infanticide.  What is it about birth that makes something non-human suddenly become human?

BP: The ability to survive outside the womb.

DM: So premature or sick babies that would die without care aren’t human?

BP: Fine.  Passing through the birth canal.

DM: What about babies born by c-section?

BP: …

DM: What makes a human human?

BP: That’s a question for philosophers.

DM: Well if you are saying murder is the intentional killing of another human, you should probably have a definition of human, no?  Maybe you should philosophize a bit.

BP: The ability to reason.

DM: So a newborn has the ability to reason?

BP: Yes.

DM: Interesting theory.  And this alleged ability is gained instantly upon live birth?  It’s a talent that didn’t exist 15 minutes prior to joining the world.

BP: @#*! you.  I have work to do.

DM: I don’t.  Recession.  But seriously, what makes a human human?

BP: A soul.

DM: When does that get there?

BP: @#*! you.  I have work to do.

           *******************************************************************************************

That’s pretty much the way things ended and I haven’t really been too popular around the office ever since.  As far as I know, none of the people involved nor those listening gave the matter anymore thought.  It’s easier not to bother.  But given the gravity of the issue and the consequences if our assumptions are wrong…doesn’t it warrant a real, considered and honest dialogue?  Even if that dialogue yields results and revelations we don’t want to accept?

I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind or take a position…or force a position on anyone.  I’m just asking questions.

For your convenience, I drew up a basic flow chart.  Take a look…and answer the questions honestly.