Sensationalized Headline? ✅
Sure, except American Prolifers don't have Assault Helicopters
Now, that I have your attention, I wanted to take a dive into a argument that highly controversial yet has it's basis on contrary philosophical claims.
- One side believes the unborn or fetus lacks personhood and should thus not be protected by society or some permutation thereof e.g. has less priority than the decision of the parent.
- One side believes the unborn or fetus has personhood and all essential attributes of humanity that would render it worthy of being protected by society.
How do we navigate through such a quagmire of contrary views? How do we change someone's mind concerning the matter?
My recommendation is you don't... that is unless you are willing to commit to unraveling the person's entire belief system. A worldview indeed is a tough nut to crack and is the basis from which our subsequent ideological views are derived to include the epistemological claims that the unborn is human or merely a clump of cells.
Full disclaimer: I believe the latter.
We would do well to note that the Pro-Life position isn't necessarily religious although it can be bolstered by such convictions e.g. all men being image bearers of God.
Genesis 1:27 KJVS
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Strong's Number
H6754
Original Word
צלם
Transliterated Word
tselem
Phonetic Spelling
tseh'-lem
Parts of Speech
Noun Masculine
Strong's Definition
From an unused root meaning to shade; a {phantom} that {is} (figuratively) {illusion} resemblance; hence a representative {figure} especially an idol: - {image} vain shew.
I would surmise this verse would be one that would comprise the religious Pro-Lifer view but, as stated, there is also a secular basis for holding the view. As I understand it, is the notion that the zygote or fetus is essentially human.
Ok so now you understand that side of things.
The other side may believe the zygote or fetus is NOT human or a person and is able to be discarded depending on the mother's wish or as a matter of convenience.
Now, I can see the disagreement.
That is the crux of the debate as I see it. Should we be calling each other evil for ending up on either side? I think not.
At the end of the day, I think it may be best to agree to disagree unless you really want to get tangled up in a discussion that may inevitably go nowhere. Again, this would be due to the presuppositional nature of worldview claims.
For instance, for one to say that science is the ultimate and exclusive means by which we can know things in a materialistic universe is a claim that itself cannot be tested. It is something that people take a priori or as a given.
So, if you would like to argue until you're blue in the face, go right ahead.
I speak from experience when I say it is not a trivial thing to change a person's fundamental principles. I am not saying it is impossible but the degree of reconfiguration required can be extensive especially for folks more settled or entrenched in their beliefs.
For every belief that is able to be debunked, there may be yet another that isn't rooted on rationality or beyond the scope of logic i.e. views derived from deeply held traditions. Good luck with changing someone's mind on those. You'll need it!
In summary, it's ok to agree to disagree and we don't have to vilify each other.