Dominic /Goagoseb
We can’t dispute that the most controversial public debate and cultural conflict of our time has been on social justice, notably civil rights. We are confronted with concerns relating to these facts virtually every day on every front of our society, from within our families to the community at large, and on social media, therefore, the urgency.
However, we are losing ground on crucial topics such as abortion simply because today’s arguments, which are postmodern by implication, lack absolutes. It has devolved into a contest of who has a more compelling story between the quasi ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’, with no regard for logic or actual truth.
As a result, there is an urgent need right now for us to create platforms where we can share perspectives and counter-perspectives on these issues in a very respectful manner. Thus, to salvage truth and to restore the sanctity of human life, rather than being divided by our political sentiments. Allow me to culminate this line of thought with the wise words of Dr Chuba Okadigbo who stated, “if you are emotionally attached to your tribe, religion or political leaning to the point that truth and justice become secondary considerations, your education is useless. Your exposure is useless. If you cannot reason beyond petty sentiments, you are a liability to mankind.”
Is it human life or just
a fertile egg?
The fundamental question in the abortion debate is whether or not the fetus at any stage of pregnancy is a human life. The first conundrum is one of the moral and ethical ramifications. If the unborn is a human life, it has a moral value, and we have a moral obligation to protect its life. Now, suppose the unborn has no moral value at conception, so when precisely does a human acquire moral value?
Second, the predicament has legal ramifications. The United Nations General Assembly enacted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948, to safeguard all human lives, including those of the unborn. According to the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings – they are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status.”
So, what exactly does it mean to be human? Is our humanity determined by the size of our growth, degree of development, environment, or dependence? These difficult questions must be addressed. Tragically, the naturalistic worldview has already failed to provide us with a cohesive argument about what it truly means to be human or even a definition of life itself. In their theories, they reduce everything to naturalism, even the sacredness of human life.
Biologically, the moment an egg is fertilised, it becomes an independent human life. For example, “the fertile egg” is a multicellular organism with its own distinct set of DNA and blood type that differs from both parents and anyone who has ever lived or will ever live. Its heartbeat develops in 18 days, even before a woman realises that she is pregnant. In 21 days, it develops its own close circulatory system, brain, spinal cord, and other important organs. To be honest, if a fertile egg was discovered on Mars, the media would report ‘Human life discovered on Mars’, but in the womb, a euphemism is employed instead.
When challenged with logical issues, the pro-choice argument always resorts to euphemisms and anti-scientific arguments. Furthermore, they ignorantly assume that the pro-life argument is just a theological or religious stand rather than scientific. The psychology underlying this is to effectively silence a reasonably strong argument because it exposes their objective, which is to harm innocent and defenceless lives. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), stated that abortion was never her option, but rather contraception. However, the PPFA and its affiliated groups are presently flying the banner of reproductive human rights on the one hand while degrading and violating the unborn’s fundamental right to be human on the other.
As I conclude, there are only four options for this predicament. It’s either that the unborn is a human life and we know about it, that it’s a human life and we don’t know about it, that it’s not human life and we know about it, or that it’s not human life and we don’t know about it. If we are ignorant, the best we can come up with is criminal negligence. Therefore, having stated that, it is only reasonable that we define what it really means to be human before we consider to dehumanise and destroy the vulnerable and innocent lives of the unborn by the millions without remorse.
* Dominic /Goagoseb is a cultural apologist and writer. His views are written in his personal capacity and does not represent any organisation.