‘A person no matter how small’: Question of when life begins is at core of abortion debate

SOURCE: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/a-person-no-matter-how-small-question-of-when-life-begins-is-at-core-of-abortion-debate/ar-AARnL89?ocid=msedgntp

12/2/2021

A line in Dr. Seuss’ book “Horton Hears a Who” haunts readers: “A person’s a person no matter how small.”

Ironically, this was penned by a man, Theodor Geisel, who while creating patriotic cartoons in support of America’s war effort against the fascism of Germany and Japan, made Japanese Americans look small with cartoons that depicted them as less than human. Horton was his apology, after a tour of Japan softened the heart of the artist.

For almost half a century, Americans have grappled with this line from Seuss. Ever since the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, a pitched battle has divided the country.

Those who, like me, see personhood at the earliest stages of human life, from conception, see abortion as a violent act against our unborn neighbors. Others see abortion as a necessary element of women’s rights.

But the question at the heart of our debate is one nobody can avoid. When does life begin? 

Since 1973, science has given us a window into the womb, showing us that an unborn child has unique DNA and a well-formed face and develops the sense of touch. All of this by 15 weeks, the time frame that a new challenge to Roe v. Wade urges the court to consider.

The  Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, brought by Mississippi in defending its new restriction on abortion, asks the court to consider scaling back or eliminating the broad bans that the court, since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, has allowed.

There has been much political analysis of this moment, with conventional wisdom sure that a favorable ruling by a conservative-leaning court will hurt the pro-life movement at the polls. But beyond the political ramifications is the moral question, the one that cannot be simply waved away.

If life begins earlier than Roe wants to acknowledge, is an abortion taking an innocent human life? Does a baby deserve to die simply because his or her existence is inconvenient?

Arguments against pro-life laws often center on law as an ineffective tool for reducing abortions. A compelling case can be made that other policies, such as family leave, might help women lean away from abortion.

Law should protect unique human beings

That might be the case, but again, we have to return to the central question: Is the unborn baby a human being deserving of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, that all human beings are created equal? And if the unborn is indeed human, shouldn’t our laws reflect this reality?

In a sense, we know and perhaps have always known that abortion takes innocent life. Consider the way we assign personhood to a baby when a woman announces her pregnancy. Consider the 3D images we post on social media when a couple gets that first ultrasound. It’s instinctual.

And yet when it comes to protection under the law, we assign the unborn the cold and dehumanizing euphemism of “a fetus.” But we cannot turn away from a baby’s humanity. We know exactly what we are doing.

Christians believe that this fit of conscience and the witness of science only confirm a word from God. King David, writing about his own conception in Psalm 139, speaks of a Creator who lovingly knits every life together and who knows all our days.

Ultimately, our faith motivates us to speak against abortion because we cannot take a life that is not ours to take. Every human, Moses tells us in Genesis, bears the image of the Almighty.

But even if you don’t believe this, even if you don’t wish to see Roe overturned, you cannot escape the question that pro-life activists have provoked for almost half a century. It’s the question that has introduced into our moral vocabulary an ethic that sees humanity in the most defenseless of our citizens. Is an unborn baby human and if so, does he or she deserve to live?

Failure to live up to ideals

I believe we’ve gotten this question wrong since 1973. I believe the more than 62 million abortions since then are not a triumph of progress but a tragic failure to live up to our own ideals, a moral stain that haunts our country.

But even if you won’t share my faith, perhaps you might listen to that line from Seuss:

A person’s a person, no matter how small.

Daniel Darling is director of the Land Center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, a frequent contributor to USA TODAY and is the author of several books, including his latest, “A Way With Words.”

Related Articles

Rethinking the Liberal Giant Who Doomed Roe

Opinion by Caitlin B. Tully, Slate, 6/25/23 SOURCE: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/rethinking-the-liberal-giant-who-doomed-roe/ar-AA1d1sds?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b6f062c06f2542b3916ac10d359b5185&ei=10 A year after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, most…

Property, Race, Colonialism, and Capitalism

Story by Brenna Bhandar, Jacobin, 7/2/23 SOURCE: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/property-race-colonialism-and-capitalism/ar-AA1dkuIh?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c0f47e1b51814c8cabb6ae5f42f5bb75&ei=14 In colonial regimes, dominant conceptions of private property developed alongside racial hierarchies. Who can claim ownership of…