[Click here] to go back
to the Table of Contents
for the "Out of the Box"
Comprehension Essays.

Introduction
Today's topic will be ... [cognitive random generation happening] ... (there just is not any obvious way to avoid going anywhere that our "political" discourse (and disagreements) have not also taken us) ... let's try abortion. Human Abortion. Or, for some of you, the abortion of "a mass of cells" that is incubating and growing (usually) within a human female, that, if left to develop long enough, will (normally) be born and recognized as a human baby.

Either way, human abortion is not actually a political issue. Rather, it is an issue related to how we view Life, the Living, that which is in Lineage relationship to us, the Other.

ConserveLiberty does not post messaging that concerns itself with "political correctness (PC)." Or, synonymously, messaging that is concerned with the "feelings" of those who read the postings. We simply endeavor to use words that represent the Truth. We are Fact-oriented. That some may become uncomfortable is not our interest. It may be yours, but not ours. We are simply interested in communicating The Truth.

The topic of Human Abortion will generate discomfort for many people, regardless of their views on the subject. Thus, in the abstract, it is appropriate for illustrating:

• the development of Critical Thinking around a topic,
• the development of innovative (Out-of-the-Box) ways to view a topic factually so that more can be understood, and
• to illustrate how the innovator could be inferred to be Bat Shit Crazy (BSC) by those who cannot (or, will not) entertain the credibility of what the innovative thinking could possibly suggest.

---

Human Abortion

Human early zygote showing
male and female pronuclei

More information about human development, from fertilization thru birth, text and pics, can be found here.

That "mass of cells" ... Is that a human or not?

Well, taken literally, the embryo or fetus is, in fact, a mass of cells. For sure. And, similarly, exactly similarly, I am also, in fact, a mass of cells.

Not wishing to leave you with the notion that I consider myself something special, it is also true that You too are also, in fact, a mass of cells.

Week 1: First cell mitotic
divisions of the zygote

Some will say, "Well, yes, but that mass of cells that is an embryo or a fetus cannot take care of itself. To survive it is completely dependent on the synergy it has with that which is taking care of it. It is not independent. It is not self-sufficient."

OK, that is very true also. So, when does that "independence take place" - when is it no longer dependent on the synergy that it has with that which is taking care of it? At birth? 6 months old? 5 years old? Teenager?

(additional examples (omitted) are legion, and are all relevant to the question)

Bad luck. Found. Miracles.

What about the situation where an accident has occured and steps are being taken at a hospital (or by a passerby) attempting to help a person stay alive?

In these cases, does this "lack of independence" somehow lessen the accuracy of identifying the injured as "more than simply a mass of cells"? Is that "mass of cells" ... human or not?

Does this seem like an "Out of the Box" way of setting up how we might more honestly analyze and discuss the issue of Human Abortion? For some it might. For me it doesn't. For me, it all seems just grounded in The Factual.

Wk 3: Gastrulation continues.
Notochord forming.

This brings up another "tell." Many will encounter the use of a word like "factual" and almost reflexively comment, "Well that is your view of the facts. Those are facts from your perspective."

[Click here] for ConserveLiberty's use of the word "Facts."

Or some similar comment. My assessment is that they are intending to imply or communicate a "view" or a "truth" to me. Views that go something like:

• "Different perspectives or different biases result in differing things being interpreted as facts." Or
• "Another view that is different from yours may not see your facts as facts." Or perhaps
• "Both these different views stand on equal footing, with equal credibility. And so your different view has no bearing on my different view, since we both have our views from different perspectives that have equal footing relative to the other."
  
  And then, of course, the unspoken is implied ...
  
  
• "Except that my view is more correct than yours. And, my view is more compassionate than yours."
  
  
• We'll stop here before the place where the derogatory name calling begins. However, it is interesting that the name calling that starts, if it starts, generally shows up asymetrically. It usually comes from the holder of the worldview that has the same thing in common with all the worldviews held by those that initiate the name calling.
  
  I'll leave that identification for another topic. Most already know what direction the name calling will come from.

Wk 5: Many struc's initiated.

The "Tell"? It turns out that "Facts" are never dependent on perspective. Interpretations may be, but actual Facts are not. Of course, that is obvious to folks that are able to identify and relate to actual facts pretty well. That "Facts" are strictly "what they are, and stand independently of any type of perspective, assumption, or bias" is more difficult to comprehend by those who are not able to consistently identify and relate to actual facts.

It is actually not possible to have a dialog that results in "influence or reconsideration of ones perspective by the other" when one (or both) in the dialog believes that "Facts depend on Perspective."

Consider me "Bat Shit Crazy" yet?

Wk 8: End of embryonic dev.
Morphogenesis continues!

So let's get back to a factual treatment of Human Abortion.

Is it OK?

Actually, ConserveLiberty is not focused on that question. The issue this essay is focusing on is how the topic is discussed. Under what "perspectives" or "narratives" or "circumstances" is the topic discussed? And, do those make rational and factual sense?

Why? Because we are focused on Critical Thinking.

Wk 18 (4 mo.): On the way.

For some reason, the answer to the question "Is it OK?" seems somehow to depend on whether we regard the embryo or fetus or "preborn mass of cells" as human. And, while I wouldn't take this approach, the approach that seems to be taken in answering this question is something like, "If it (the preborn) Is Not a human, then it (its abortion) is OK. If it Is a human, then it is not OK."

And from there, depending on whether one wants the abortion (for whatever reason) and how far the pregnancy is along, the narrative that seems to come along with the decision to have the abortion is, "Right now, it is not human. It's just a mass of cells."

Now, at this point, I'm pretty sure that all folks who have opinions on this matter that are either comfortable or not comfortable with abortion would agree that so far I've spelled the "facts" of the issue out pretty accurately. I'm sure folks on either side will insist that I've left something out that is very important. And what is regarded that I left out might be different depending on which side of the issue one is on. That's fine. It's not my intent to fully portray all sides of the debate. Getting a few of the important facts down should suffice for our purposes.

Relative fetal sizes

Warning (to some):
Just sticking to facts does have the impact of making a lot of people of a certain type anxious. Maybe nervous. Maybe angry. Such are humans!.

OK, lets go further down the road of facts.

The answer to the question, "Is it (abortion) OK?" is NOT a fact.

That is a Decision. Even the meaning of "OK" depends on a lot of other stuff. Let's just stick to the facts.

How about, "Is that mass of cells human?"

The finish line crossed.

OK, that's an easy one to answer factually. You don't have to be a biologist to answer that one. It's actually pretty clear:

• "Is it a cow?" - Nope.
• "Is it a strawberry?" - Nope.
• "Is it a shrimp?" - Nope.
• "Is it alive" - Yep, that mass of cells is moving along on a developmental program all its own.
• Hmm, if it is alive, and has its own development program which it is executing, then that must be happening through the same mechanism of action that we observe happening with all species we have ever examined to date. It must be driven genetically. And thus, the programing was inherited.
• Let's just make sure, "Is that "embryo" under the influence of its own genetic program, such that much of what is healthy or unhealthy about it can be understood either via its genetics or the environment that it is being exposed to?" - Yep.
• OK, finally, "Where did it inherit its genetics from?" - Easy. Two humans. Unless it is a clone. And even if it was a clone, it inherited its genetics from a human. In fact, it is going to keep unfolding just like every other embryo under that programming has ever unfolded. As a human does.
• Thus, it is human. While it is alive and developing. Until it is dead.

And, similarly, I am human. Right now. Until I am dead. Once dead, all that is "right now me" becomes a part of "whatever happens next."

At this point, ConserveLiberty has set up a fairly obvious perspective with which to undertake a more honest decision on whether an abortion is appropriate or not for you. One which is based within "Truths". This is unlike the way it is positioned and narrated today. At the time of this writing:

• Abortion is positioned as if it is a "Woman's Rights" issue. It is not a Woman's Rights issue. It is true that if a couple is going to undergo an abortion procedure, one of those undergoing the procedure is a woman. For sure. She is the one carrying the unborn child. The other one undergoing the procedure is the unborn child. That child is either male or female. And it is one or the other (normally.)
  
  Another example would make it more clear that this is not a Woman's Rights issue. Let's say someone unknown to me has entered my house uninvited, and they won't leave even though I do not want them there. For whatever reason, I believe they are a threat to me, and that I will be harmed if they continue doing whatever they plan to do in my home. Is it a Male's Rights issue that I have the freedom to decide whether to kill them or not? Many would say it is not a Male's Rights issue. It is a Right to Protect or a Right to Defend issue.
  
  Either way, the intruder was, truthfully, a "mass of cells."
  
  Abortion is not a Women's Rights issue.
  
  
• It is often said by many that those who oppose abortion, who refer to themselves as "Pro-Life," are misogynists.
  
  Those who are misogynists are so for reasons that have nothing to do with abortion at all. An example similar to the one above could make that more clear. I'll leave that to you.
  
  Those who are "Pro-Life" are not misogynists.
  
  
• What is interesting is that those who advocate for abortion also advocate for the prevention of showing the mother who is going to undergo the procedure what the fetus unside her actually looks like. They advocate for preventing the distribution of educational material to these mothers describing factually what is developing inside her. Descriptions from a biological perspective. Information which, at its roots, is representative of the actual facts involved.
  
  Why would that be? Let me cut to the chase. It is much easier to kill something that you do not believe is a human.
  
  When we see something that has enough human characteristics, we are drawn to considering it as human. Let's consider the assumption that a fetus being aborted is not human. Generally, those who believe that also believe that if it goes on to be born, it becomes human. And that if it is aborted, then it remains not human.
  
  
  
  Abortion survivor Melissa Ohden, 40, with husband
  Ryan and their daughters, Olivia, 9, and Ava, 3.
  If the assumption is true, then an aborted fetus which was not human cannot become human no more than an aborted cow could become human.
  
  How would one validate that? Generally, once aborted, the "mass of cells" is dead or dies, and so one certainly has no convincing evidence that would suggest that the aborted fetus ever was developmentally human.
  
  Unless, the aborted fetus survives. And then thrives.
  
  Everything factually informational actually supports the notion that the embryo is destined to be a human baby when born. And thus, developmentally it is as close as it can be (at whatever moment it is) to that human baby it is becoming. Which then makes it a human embryo.
  
  That comprehension gives pause to many for reasons of their own instincts. Those advocating for the availability, use, practice, and sale of abortive activities do whatever they can to "dehumanize" the perception of that embryo. The closest truth they will allow is that it is a "mass of cells."
  
  Somewhat deceptive isn't it? I am a mass of cells. From a practical perspective, "mass of cells" isn't really an informative term. Although those who want it to be, who need it to be, imagine the term means whatever it is convenient for them to mean.

Is it OK?

We keep coming back to that question on this topic, and I repeat that it is not ConserveLiberty's intent to answer that question. That question is up to you to answer, from the perspective of as much as you can come to understand that is Factual.

ConserveLiberty considers this question more abstractly:

Is it OK to kill any mass of cells I come across whenever I have determined that it is not convenient to me for it to be alive now or that it may cause me harm (not identified, but could) someday?