Intro:
Hello Everyone welcome to Bad Table Talk I am your host Oliver Niehaus and you may be curious about the difference in the music you’re hearing, once again of course crafted by my good friend Oscar Gregg, but the reason for the change is that this is a new 3 part series that I’m doing surrounding the issue of Abortion. Yes, we’re actually going to talk about it. Now of course I’m unapologetically pro-choice when it comes to this issue and will be going through all the arguments you’ve heard and many you probably haven’t. As I said before this series will be split into 3 parts, Part 1: Should the Fetus be granted moral consideration from the moment of conception, Part 2: The Bodily Autonomy argument, and Part 3: Why Even if you believe Abortion to be the unjust killing of an innocent human being, why making it illegal is not the solution. I realize this is a very controversial topic and one which people often have very strong opinions so I will do my best to respect everyone’s opinions and make this more of an educational and thought-provoking series rather than trying to make those who hold different beliefs seem evil as seems to be done far too often on both sides. I only ask that you enter this with an open mind and be willing to consider things you haven’t considered. Allow yourself to question and wonder. So please sit back, relax, and listen with an open mind. Thank you
So Welcome to Bad Table Talk, I’m your host Oliver Niehaus and before we begin I just want to say that despite the fact that I am currently pro-choice and I cannot imagine that ever changing, there was a brief period of time in which I was pro-life and opposed abortion. This was part of my libertarian phase which sometimes I’d like to forget but regardless, I say this because if you’re sitting here today listening thinking, “I could never support an action that kills an innocent human being” hey I hear you because that used to be me and I understand the thought process. Too often during Abortion debates which honestly can turn into screaming matches all too quickly, it seems as if both parties aren’t even debating the same topic. Those who are pro-choice are quick to accuse pro-lifers of wanting to control women’s bodies and tell men they can’t have an opinion on the subject while pro-lifers are quick to call pro-choicers baby killers who just want to kill innocent human lives out of convenience. And there’s much more nuance to each individual position being that not everyone supports and opposes abortion for the same reasons. There are many positions across the spectrum from on-demand abortion until birth to the complete abolition of all abortions with no exceptions. Now it’s more than likely that you fall somewhere in the middle. So let’s set the parameters of the discussion so that hopefully in the future when you’re having these conversations they can be more productive and not escalate so quickly. So Pro-lifers, pro-choicers aren’t these evil baby killers who want to disregard human life out of convenience, they truly believe in at least one of these statements, one, the fetus doesn’t meet the threshold to be considered a human person or to be granted the same rights as you or me, two, the bodily rights of the mother to control what happens inside her own body should be up to the woman, not the government, and three there are statistically more effective ways to lower the abortion rate and banning abortions won’t lead to an overall decrease in abortions and will just make the procedure unsafe. And to Pro-choicers, pro-lifers aren’t these people who want to control women’s bodies and impose their Christian morals on you, they genuinely believe that the unborn is a human being deserving of all the same rights and protections as you and me and they see abortion as an unjust taking of innocent human life. So when you go into these discussions, try to understand where they’re coming from and for the overwhelming majority of people it does come from genuine consideration and from an overall good place.
So since this is the first episode, I think we should take some time to define terms and make sure we are actually having the same conversation.
Abortion is defined as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. This means that technically an early delivery performed before 28 weeks which would not be designed at all to end the life of the fetus would technically be considered an abortion. However, when we’re having this discussion more broadly we will more commonly refer to procedures designed to terminate the pregnancy which results in the death of the fetus. Also, it’s important to agree that life begins at conception and more specifically human life. The pro-choice arguments that deny that the fetus is alive or human are simply doing a disservice to science and the ability to have an intellectual conversation. However, conceding that scientific fact that human life begins at conception means nothing in this discussion. So it’s a human life. Why does that give it moral value? So the most important thing we have to define when deciding whether abortion is moral or immoral is what specifically makes human life valuable? For most of us, we would value human life over that of animals. For all you vegans out there, I applaud you for your dedication. My cousins are vegan and I’ve watched countless slices of Chocolate Cake pass in front of them or sizzling strips of bacon pass under their noses during early mornings at our grandparent’s house and to my astonishment not once does it seem that they were tempted to take a bite. But regardless, I believe even they would acknowledge that humans are more morally valuable than animals or at least acknowledge that there is something that significant that distinguishes us from animals. But to the vast majority of you who aren’t vegan and actually aren’t deprived of life’s simplest pleasures, I’m totally kidding vegans are honestly some of the happiest people I’ve met, and their collections of vegan recipes for things like cheeseburgers that don’t include cheese or a burger, it’s quite impressive and actually doesn’t taste god awful! Like I could never go vegan but have you ever tried a vegan burger? Like yeah, it’s no buttery cheeseburger but like I actually kind of enjoyed it! Alright, this is getting a little off topic but back to the point, most of us are not vegan, and even so many who are realize that humans are more morally valuable than animals. Why is this? Why do we grant more moral consideration to most humans than animals? Well, this is a concept called personhood. Basically what gives something value is not determinant on species but rather characteristic of the individuals of that species that we deem to have value. For example, humans have a brain structure far more complex than any animal alive. This allows humans to have higher levels of rational thought and a higher level of what we consider subjective experience, the ability to perceive one’s environment in ways animals cannot. The cerebral cortex is the main part of the brain that distinguishes us from animals and is what allows for higher levels of experience and brain functionality. So what gives human life before that value? Before the point at which the cerebral cortex is fully formed meaning a higher level of subjective experience and ability for rational thought, that fetus is no more valuable than any other form of life.
Now you may object to that premise, but all objections seem to fail when taken a closer look at. One of the responses to that is that the value of human life is axiomatic, meaning that it’s self-evident. Unfortunately, this is just circular reason as when it is broken down, this statement basically says “Human life is valuable because it’s human life.” This is not a defensible claim. However, another and more common response to this is that the fetus has the potential to have subjective experience and higher brain functionality. There are multiple issues with this argument. First, you have conceded that it is indeed subjective experience and higher brain functionality that gives the fetus moral consideration but rather that the potential to gain that gives it value immediately. While on face value this seems to make sense, why would we deprive a fetus of its ability to obtain those characteristics? However, when broken down, we are forced to accept some conclusions that most rational people won’t accept. If it’s potential that determines value, why is the line conception? There is potential for a human to be created and thus potential for subjective experience and higher brain function every time two people engage in sexual intercourse. Therefore is the use of contraception also wrong because it prevents the potential for conception and thus the potential to develop subjective experience and higher brain functionality? Let’s extrapolate this out even further. The potential can be traced all the way to the point at which a man and a woman have feelings of sexual attraction towards each other. This means there is a potential for them to have intercourse which would potentially lead to conception to occur which would potentially lead to that fetus developing subjective experience and higher brain functionality. Would we declare that those two individuals are depriving a fetus of its right to life by not having sex which would start the chain of events? Of course not. Most wouldn’t accept the premise that using contraception would be depriving the fetus of its right to life even though it prevents the potential from it being created and thus having the potential to develop subjective experience and higher brain functionality.
There are also a few other issues with potential. If everything were to be granted based on potential, well then I as a 17-year-old should be able to drink, smoke, vote, rent a car, buy a gun, run for political office, and even claim my retirement benefits. Those all have minimum ages but I have the potential to reach those ages so therefore I should be given all benefits and privileges of those age groups now. Technically so should an infant and even fetus at conception. Same with age of consent laws. Children have the potential to reach the age which they can consent so why shouldn’t they be given that ability now? The reality is that we realize different stages of development warrants different rights and privileges. Alcohol can be especially damaging to the young mind and thus we limit the purchase and ability to legally consume to those 21 years old and over. The fact that I as a 17-year-old have the potential to reach 21 doesn’t grant me that privilege now the same way a fetus at conception isn’t granted the right to life or considered valuable now just because it has the potential to reach that point where we would consider it to have moral value. Another example of how potential isn’t used in the real world is in sporting tryouts or auditions for a production. The coach or director isn’t looking at what you can do in the future, they are looking at what you can do now. If you tank the tryout or audition and then go to the coach or director and say “Hey I know I tanked but I have the potential to do better in the future”, they’d brush you off. You have to prove you have current value to the team or production the same way you’d have to prove a fetus at conception has current value at that point, not just that there is potential for it to occur in the future, which isn’t at all certain. 50-80% of fertilized eggs end in miscarriage. If you told the director that there was a 50-80% chance you’d miss the final production or tell the coach the same thing about game day, would you really expect them to prioritize you or give you value as a member of the team or cast? We aren’t even talking about something that is definite in happening. There is a greater chance that a fertilized egg will end in miscarriage rather than birth. We never use potential to justify value outside the womb so why is the fetus different?
Now you may make the argument, what about sleeping, or being in a coma, or being unconscious? You don’t have subjective experience or the current capacity for higher brain functionality, so, therefore, do you lose your personhood and moral value in those situations? Well, the answer is obviously no you actually do retain them and the reason is because you never lose something called implicit memory. Implicit memory is an aspect of subjective experience and is what makes sure that you are the same person when you go to sleep as you are when you wake up and the same is true with a coma or being unconscious. Animals do have this as well, but not at the same level as humans. Due to the complexity of the human brain, humans have the ability for a higher level of implicit memory than animals meaning humans can last much longer in comas and other vegetative states and wake up as long as 27 years later with the same sense of self and identity they had when they entered. This just isn’t present in animals. Animals like mice have been put in comas for as short as a few days and when they wake up, are unable to walk, smell, see or even have any similar brain activity as brain scans proved that these mice indeed had forgotten who they were entirely. As a human due to the complexity of the human brain, implicit memory is constant.
So maybe by now, you’ve accepted that granting the fetus full moral consideration and personhood at conception isn’t logical, however, if you’re still not convinced that a fertilized egg shouldn’t be granted the same moral rights as you and me, let’s consider the following scenarios. If a fertilized egg is truly equal in value to you and me, then miscarriage kills nearly 1 million people every year in the United States. Remember, you said you believed that fertilized eggs at conception were equal in value to you and me. Therefore shouldn’t we be spending trillions of dollars to prevent miscarriages each year? Heck during a global pandemic that’s killed over 200,000 Americans, we’ve spent over $3 trillion dollars to help those affected by the virus and pay for vaccine development and Personal Protective Equipment and treatments for those on Medicare and Medicaid. But using the estimated numbers, over 500,000 innocent human lives equal to you and me have died. Screw fighting the pandemic. More human beings with equal moral value to those who have died to the pandemic have been killed. We should be helping them. Now one objection that is often made against this argument is that miscarriage is a natural process while these other deaths are unnatural to which I respond that this is a false statement. The spread of a virus is natural the same way cancer is a natural process. Just because it’s a natural process doesn’t mean we let it be and don’t try to stop the killing of innocent human lives. What about natural disasters? Why should we tell people to evacuate their homes? It’s just a natural process. The truth is that the naturalness of a process is irrelevant. If the process, natural or not, kills innocent human beings with full personhood as you agreed before, then we have an obligation to stop this senseless loss of human life. Maybe 17 cents of every one of your taxpayer dollars should go to research on preventing miscarriages rather than to the military who will use it to senselessly bomb other countries and actually kill more people, and yes that is a plug to my previous podcast series called Actually Making America Great and specifically the episode on the War on Terrorism which you should all check out and will be linked below. And what about invitro-fertilization? If you’re unaware of what that is, it’s basically the process where an egg and sperm are taken from the man and woman and fertilized in a lab and inserted back into the woman’s uterus or a surrogate if they so choose. If you accept the natural process argument then even without the information that will follow this would already be wrong, but unfortunately despite being responsible for making fertilized eggs, the process of implantation in the uterus is difficult, and sometimes as many as 15-20 separate embryos are created or rather human persons as you would say which are just discarded after one implants. Implantation itself is a difficult process even without IVF. 50% of fertilized eggs don’t implant and thus lead to miscarriage. So if you truly believe that the fertilized egg is a human person with equal value to you and me, then you must be against IVF which kills as many as 19 innocent human persons each time the process is initiated and be for exponentially higher funding of research that would study how to lower miscarriages because 1 million people are dying every year. Also, miscarriages can be affected by the decisions of the pregnant woman that can impact the chance of a miscarriage occurring. For example, and this touches briefly on the bodily rights argument that I’ll address in the next episode, but if there’s a particular diet that will reduce the miscarriage rate from 50-80% to 20-40%, should the government force that woman to adhere to that diet? If not shouldn’t she be charged with child neglect? Let’s consider even more implications of personhood at conception. Can a pregnant woman be arrested? Now you may not be making the connection but for those who are, this was definitely a big brain moment for me. Basically, if you’re granting the fetus personhood at conception which would give it all the protections in the constitution and otherwise, can a pregnant woman be arrested when there is an innocent human being inside of her with the right to due process and by doing this you’re arresting an innocent human being and thus violating the constitutional rights you’re giving to the fetus. How about the census? Should currently pregnant women be counted as two in the upcoming 2020 census, why is it birthright citizenship and not citizenship of the country in which you were conceived. If these examples make you uncomfortable or realize how absurd the claim of personhood and moral value is, good! It means you don’t actually agree that the fetus has equal rights from conception. When analyzed thoughtfully, it is clear that the idea of a fertilized egg being given the same moral value as you and me is preposterous.
Now, this is in no way a comprehensive ethical discussion surrounding the issue of Abortion and specifically even personhood at conception, but rather using real-world examples as well as just logical and deductive reasoning skills to discuss why the idea of personhood at conception is deeply flawed. Now does this mean that there aren’t arguments out there surrounding this specific topic that could challenge the assertions that I made here? Oh Of course not! And that’s where you come in! Please feel free to email me with any comments, questions, concerns, or anything else surrounding this episode. This is much more complicated than just what I brought up so if you’re interested in learning more, I’ve linked down below a few online books that go more in-depth on this topic that I found to be insightful during the research and learning process. Books giving both perspectives are down below. Regardless, I hope you enjoyed this segment and that I stayed true to what I promised in the intro which was to respect everyone’s views and make this more of an educational and thought-provoking series rather than the heated emotional debate that seems to be the norm. If you’re willing, please leave a rating and review in Apple Podcasts and Subscribe for more of these segments. All else aside, regardless of where you stand on this issue, thank you for keeping an open mind and I hope to see you back here for the next segment. Take care.
