The Abortion Paradox: I - The Preface

The Abortion Paradox
************************

This narrative is not meant to be one of conflict, contradiction, or antipathy. My intent is to focus solely on an opportunity for more of an in-depth conversation about one of the more divisive and incorrigible concepts that have arisen within (our) society over the last century. This by no means infers an environment without disagreement and animosity. That would be naïve and somewhat ignorant, considering the collision of thought (reason), philosophy (ideology), and morality (ethics) that has existed throughout the entirety of my life, and continues to thwart the comprehension between individuals of not only the concepts of freedom and autonomy, but attempts to repudiate and oppose the very fundamentals of the legitimacy of life itself, as well as respect for all other individuals, their systems of belief, and the contemplation of what is actually logical, reasonable, and justifiable.

I have no wish to parse or nuance my perspective into something more palatable to those that may be uncomfortable with my positions. One would think that if an individual is willing and capable of terminating the life of another human being, they would be able to accept and engage with those who disagree, and to defend and refute contrary opinions and difficult questions. As a point of respect, and in the interest of full disclosure, my position on the concept of abortion is that it is not only an inappropriate action by one human being towards another innocent and vulnerable individual human being, but that it cannot be defended, refuted, or reasonably argued in any real sense.

My intent is to clearly state and argue my own positions in respect to the concept of abortion. While my positions do not come from a religious standpoint, it is inarguable, from my own perspective, that they derive from a fundamental and passionate personal philosophy that is based on moral and ethical concepts that have taken a lifetime to develop and evolve. I have my own version of ideological beliefs, contained in the philosophy of objectivism, but since I Reason, as well as intellect and emotion, are present in these observations, and that, of course, is a primal stumbling block when it comes to not only communication, but the will and intent to even try to have a reasonable and civil conversation.

I believe the information that I will introduce is more than simply credible and legitimate, I find it is, or should be, compelling to the point that it is difficult to refute or deny. That is a personal opinion, to be sure, and yet there exists a preponderance of evidence that exists today, which is accepted by many more individuals than just myself, and this strongly suggests that it is a valid and substantive perspective.

Many who may read this may not be swayed by my presentation, and that is somewhat disappointing, but understandable and not really surprising. I can only hope that they will at least listen with an open mind, and not necessarily argue with my own positions, although that is certainly an option, but perhaps consider and argue with their own long-held positions that may be in need of some re-evaluation.

I made note that my point of view is not a religious one, and while I have had an extensive relationship with Christianity, and Catholicism in general, it has little to do with my eventual set of beliefs. An influence? Possibly, but I am firmly an ignostic, and have been for decades. I do not deny possibilities when it comes to god and religion, but I have found that there is little, if any, real evidence of the existence of god, in any form, although I must admit that the anecdotal and circumstantial evidence at times is compelling to the point of overwhelming.

These concepts are rather irrelevant and of little importance, at least to me, in the formulation, direction, and implementation of my own personal philosophy. The same holds true for my evaluations of politics (the secular equivalent of an oppressive quasi-religious belief system) and all of the other ideologies and convictions that vie for my support. They attempt to persuade me to follow nothing more than additional dogmatic mindsets, and only more false gods and fabricated narratives. The least desirable and legitimate among us seem to migrate to the political and religious environments, where power and influence reside, but where reason and truth fear to tread. My philosophical leanings are not inspired by political hacks, nor by prophets and gurus.

Lastly, I am not convinced nor attracted to charismatic or coercive individuals who promote issues that are reflected through public opinion and emotionalism. I prefer rational conversations, and reasoned arguments, to help me direct and define my own personal opinions. And that is all that I offer, the opinion of a single individual, neither leading or following others. But my perspectives are passionate and heart-felt, deeply researched and perpetually contemplated, as I look for answers to the questions that have plagued me, as well as my species, from the beginning of time. Abortion is one of those paradoxes.

In addition to all of these things, I think it appropriate that I make the point that much of what I have to say will be in the context of objectivism, a philosophy that I believe allows the individual to self-determine issues such as these. I readily admit that I have been influenced, or should I say simply that I have found insight and a fair degree of truth in what Ayn Rand and her philosophy have had to say. This is fascinating for me, because I find her perspective extremely compatible with my own on so many subjects, and yet, in the case of abortion, I don’t see how we can be any further apart than we seem to be. I will never be able to ask or debate her on these issues, and that is unfortunate.

I find it intriguing that there exists such a divide between us, when the fundamentals that I use to criticize the concept and action of abortion came, fundamentally, from her own basic concepts from which objectivism itself was derived. To counter those that strongly oppose objectivism as a cult and populated by nothing more than sycophants and acolytes, it amuses me to show them that one of her own is not averse to not only confronting her positions, but strongly arguing with her stances, and ultimately find them to be anathema to her own philosophical beliefs.

Objectivism represents individualism in its most basic form, and it is this basic concept of the individual that is being trampled by the concept of abortion. It is not even the fact that someone wishes to accept that this is not against the whole concept of freedom of the individual, but that they don’t comprehend that it depicts and represents the exact opposite.

I find it contradictory in nature, and more than a little bit hypocritical that those who demand what they call ‘autonomy’ for themselves, totally dismiss and ignore that same concept for others, especially when they disagree. Autonomy is something where you accept and embrace total responsibility for personal actions, without exception. It is where the individual makes it a point to ‘own’ the action, as well as any consequences and ramifications that derive from any action taken. Where is the ownership of the pregnancy itself? I just don’t see it, and therefore cannot condone or agree to grant them the ‘autonomy’ that they demand and desire.

One of the fundamental issues in the conversation on abortion is the concept of when life begins. This demands that we look at the subject from the point of view of scientific evidence as opposed to the emotional interpretation that many seem to have adopted. This also should be irrespective of the positions of religion, cultural norms or political or philosophical ideologies. The concept under consideration is to when life begins, as well as if and when the developing fetus is human, and this is something I intend to discuss, in depth and comprehensively. I hope that I can inspire some personal internal dialogue with my presentation. God knows (sic) that we need something to break the subjective logjam that defines our contemporary philosophical reality.

PARADOX Defined
***********************

Paradox: I find that the specific definition for the term, in this instance found on Wikipedia, is an excellent example of what we find presented as the concept of abortion, which is promoted and accepted by a large segment of our society today, albeit not a majority by any definition. Their interpretation follows:

“A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement
that runs contrary to one's expectation. It is a statement that, despite apparently
valid reasoning from true or apparently true premises, leads to a seemingly
self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion.
A paradox usually involves contradictory-yet-interrelated elements that exist
simultaneously and persist over time. They result in "persistent contradiction between
interdependent elements" leading to a lasting "unity of opposites"

I admit that this definition may be a bit convoluted and confusing, but I also find this to be quite true and consistent in the narrative, mostly political, but also, at times, both philosophical and intellectual, that is used to validate and legitimize the position that it is a matter of some personal and political ‘right’ to terminate the existence of another human being. Of course, the conversation is immediately punctuated by some statement that tries to make the point that what exists within the host mother is neither alive nor human. They dismiss all the evidence to the contrary, confident that the empty rhetoric has resolved the contradiction with reality, never to be recognized or acknowledged going forward.

Of course, if this supposition were true, then this validation and legitimization of the act of abortion would be successful, and the conflict resolved, but it is not so simple, and it is simply a misconception and little more than a self-serving perspective. My intent with this essay is to confront and address such a misguided mindset, and to offer, as evidence, what I have found over years and years of study and research on the subject, to that end.

There needs to be an understanding that this perspective emanates from a single individual, and I while I have to acknowledge the possible fallibility of my own conclusions, it will take more than a simple disagreement to initiate any doubt or changes to that perspective.

I intend to make the attempt, however fruitless it may be, to speak of the issues without the intrusion of emotion, culture, religion, ideology and politics. I am not here to speak of the ‘political’ right to life, and I do not wish to promote any laws that some may wish existed to protect the unborn. I will leave that to the social paradigm that controls and directs our legislative and political realities.

There will be no desire to speak of religious dogma or opinion, except perhaps in some secondary or indirect aspect, in relation to my own perspective, but try to consistently talk of what ‘science’ and ‘reason’ has revealed to me as to the contemplation and existence of the concept, the social conclusions, the procedure, and the action itself. It is not only accepting the theoretical need for the concept of abortion, but the actual procedure and action that results in the termination, the extinction, of another human being. And it is ‘not’ for anything that they may have done or said, but only because they (the zygote, the embryo, the fetus) were in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Their innocence is without question, and yet their inconvenience to some arbitrary ‘autonomous’ individual is without parallel.

The fact that this whole concept is not incomprehensible to most, if not all, seems to be inarguable, and yet we find it not only a consideration, but we find an abnormally large segment of our society that not only recognizes the act, but embraces it as a natural and personal right, with no right of another person, or society itself, to question or to judge their decision. This is a singular event in the history of mankind. It illustrates an irrationality that is not easily identified, or reasonably explained by those that have accepted it. This does not reflect well upon the individual, the society, nor the species itself.

I am unabashedly an American and a human being, and issues such as this one make me ashamed and embarrassed to admit being either one of these things. As a child, I expected so much more from our society and the individuals who constitute such a community. As an adult, I can only lament the immaturity and ignorance that allows us to do such a thing. It dwarfs war and disease, primarily because we do so through our own self-determinations, and something that is ominously and paradoxically called the ‘freedom of choice”. There should ‘never’ be a right or a choice to kill, and to wantonly terminate life. Throughout the entirety of my existence, I have heard the word ‘genocide’ bandied about whenever it helped a political or philosophical argument. If abortion is not the epitome of genocide, I can think of nothing else that is more so than this concept, and this action.

PREFACE
************

If you have not already comprehended that I am not a fan of the concept of abortion, then, as a matter of full disclosure, I would like to make it clear that my positions, my perspectives, if you will, have resulted from a lifetime of fascination with the societal concept of abortion. I have seen so many different individuals talk on the subject, and I have failed to understand, with all the voices and points of view, exactly what it is that they actually envision and desire, and why it has to result in such an abomination of freedom. I know my language may seem aggressive and passionate at times, but the things that have been said of me and to me over the years are without question some of the most disturbing and critical I have ever received, and this has influenced the context of my own positions on issues such as religion, culture, politics, philosophy and personal autonomy.

As a side note, It is interesting and relevant that one of the most fundamental aspects of the abortion controversy is this idea of autonomy, but more of that later.

I am not what one might call ‘mainstream’. I don’t believe that I ever could have been described as such. I am what you might call proud of the person I have become, although I am not sure how much credit I can even expect, since I have simply experienced life, and have had to make decisions and come to conclusions based on those experiences, and they often leave little room for argument, even with myself. Philosophy can be somewhat coercive in its own way, and that can be an enigma. That is not to say that this sojourn of discovery has not been difficult or complicated, because it has been, but in the end, most things are quite obvious, albeit abortion does not seem to be that simple, at least to so many others.

History shows that many do not agree with my conclusions, or at least many of those that had power and influence and control over others, which of course includes those with wealth and charisma and often a ruthless attribute. While these things exist, they were never something that showed mankind as superior or even desirable, it was just the way it was.

In any case, much of life is literally quite obvious. I am not what you would call a religious person, perhaps not at all, although I like to think of myself as a spiritual soul who is searching for information, perhaps revelation of some kind, and eventually, and hopefully, an understanding of the world around us. While I was brought up Christian and Catholic, it never really ‘stuck’, and at some point, was, maybe not rejected or even dismissed, but relegated to those things that exist but hold little or no value or substance for me. Too many rules, too many inconsistencies, not enough honesty or morality (which was disturbingly conflicting), and way too many questions that were never really answered.

For me, this was doubly confusing and frustrating, because while I was on this journey of discovery, I was confronted with challenges that only made it that much more difficult. You see, my uncle was a Catholic priest, which I thought would be invaluable and help me with my research and investigations, which, unfortunately, was never the case. Add to that that my older brother was also a Catholic priest, and it becomes even more frustrating. I expected both of them to be open and honest about beliefs and would be a source of salient information not readily available to most other people. I was emotionally and intellectually, and eventually philosophically horribly disappointed in the results. They were defensive and exhibited a troubling inability to articulate answers to the difficult questions that plagued me, and showed a surprising lack of knowledge, at least in the theoretical sense, of their own religion and the philosophy it was based upon.

They were quite intelligent, or at least I thought so, and I never questioned their faith. I guess I should say that I did indeed ‘question’ the whole concept of faith, but felt they were sincere and comfortable in their own beliefs. I actually admired them for this. It was just that they could not persuade me in any respect that those beliefs held any real value or substance in relation to my own reality. Perhaps it was a weakness or lack of ability or understanding on my part, but it did not seem so at the time, and upon reflection, has not changed appreciably over the last fifty years. I perpetually question my own positions and beliefs, as we all should on a regular basis, but I find it difficult to criticize my own conclusions.

There is an imperative that exists to reiterate that I am, from my own perspective only, a scientist (small ‘s’) and a philosopher (medium ‘p’ maybe even a large ‘P’). I have been focused on the contemplation of the practical aspects of philosophy (those we can use on a daily basis) and see science as a source of what we might sometimes take as fact, and this has been a form of confirmation and information over my lifetime. I am both a liberal and a conservative, and if push came to shove, I guess that the breakdown would be something in the neighborhood of 40% liberal and 60% conservative, give or take a few points.

I find the largest conflict with such a reality is that I have problems with both camps, not when it comes to theory, intent and expectation, but when it comes to implementation, and the lengths they will go to achieve their goals. More an issue of the means justifying the ends, and have found that the liberals are more inclined to be willing to use almost any means to justify their ‘ends’, which I agree are desirable (the ends, not the means) in many instances, but they trample rights and common decency to get there. Unacceptable to someone such as myself. For me, it is more important to achieve legitimate and significant ends ‘only’ with the use of even more legitimate and significant ‘means’. Anything else negates whatever is ultimately accomplished, even when the results are valuable and beneficial ends.

For the sake of this conversation, lastly (but there are many more perspectives), I again reiterate that I am a lifelong objectivist, and I have found it to be the best of all worlds. I know there are many that would disagree, and that is their right, their ‘choice’, but their opposition is misplaced and significantly misinformed on the issues. It takes the best of religion, removes the coercion, and allows the individual to self-determine and come to their own conclusions. It has an infinitely more reasonable interpretation of social interaction and politics, closely in agreement with our founding fathers and the original concept and intent of capitalism. There is an anarchistic aspect to the expectations and desires that are neither unrealistic nor unreasonable. If we can be honest with ourselves, for just a moment, this anarchism exists in every other ideology that has ever been created or developed – we all think our own way is better, even if far from perfect, and we want the ability and the freedom to direct our own actions and futures as determined by our own thoughts and contemplations. Nothing could be more natural.

A Foray Into The Concept Of Abortion
*****************************************

This issue of abortion is about many perceptions, and even more emotions, but it needs to be considered from a specific and rational perspective. It is not about autonomy, and it is not even about personal freedom, especially since there are multiple personalities involved in the paradigm, and the debate. From what I have been able to discover, it is about, primarily, two intrinsic concepts that need to be considered and determined before anything else can even be discussed. These would be the most important and legitimate questions in relation to the idea of abortion. There is an imperative to answer the question of the unborn; are they living, and are they human? Everything else pales in comparison. If they are both alive and human, then what is being done is atrocious and is completely without merit. It is nothing less than tyranny and enslavement of another human being. If not, then it would seem that it is a legitimate question that needs to be answered on a personal level, and inevitably, within the political and social environment. The problem is that these innocents, these individuals, these ‘souls’, are as alive as you and me, and they are irrefutably human as well. There is no real argument, and there is no evidence that conflicts with the position that holds up to rational debate. Agree or not, science and philosophy do not disagree. If this is true, then we need to rethink the entire debate, and we need to re-evaluate the misinformation and misinterpretation of the facts as they exist. I hope to do exactly that with my presentation.

I have to close this opening presentation with the reiteration of my position. The unborn zygote, the developing human being within, the fetus, is every bit as alive and human as any one of us, and it deserves more respect, understanding and empathy than it is receiving. If you dare, come and listen to a perspective that attempts to explain, in detail, why this is true. It is not a matter of opinion, although there are more than enough of those to go around. It is a matter of science, of philosophy, of intellect, and of reality.

Dispose of life if you so choose, but do so with the acknowledgment of what the reality actually is, and not what you might wish it to be. It is for us to contemplate the pressures and uncertainties that some individuals experience when they find themselves in a situation that is untenable or uncomfortable, inconvenient if you will. We do not terminate life on a whim, or as a matter of convenience, at least we shouldn’t, and when we do, it should be through exhaustive considerations and conclusions. The only exception is to protect the rest of humanity or in personal defense of our own lives or family. Nothing else. Let us see if we can actually agree on some of this, and continue the conversation from a rational and philosophical perspective in the future.

The next installment will cover the process of conception, or fertilization, and the development of a unique and very human individual. It should constitute an answer that is compelling to anyone as to whether the zygote is alive from the first moment of conception, through the entire embryos’ development into the inevitable fetus that will in time, through the birth process, become a wholly independent individual. The question of life and humanity is answered well before this physical stage of development where it is necessary to go out in the world and continue the process. If any evidence exists to refute or reasonably argue this claim, feel free to make your opinions known, I am more than willing to entertain disparate points of view. As Ayn Rand suggests, it is reality that should decide what is true and what is not. I find it perplexing that she was not able to do so herself. The reality is irrefutable. Wishful thinking is not. There have to be better options than the oppressive and irrevocable imperative to kill another. And yet, there seem to be none at all.




Our next segment will focus on the actual reality of the fertilization and development of the zygote, the embryo, and the fetus within the womb during the process from conception to the physical birth.