Project ETD

Section Four - Alternative Facts

I can't help but notice that I spent a lot of time making a case against the "Famous Violinist" argument.

My goal isn't to spend the entire time trying to debunk one side or the other's hypotheticals, but having to spend a great deal of time to argue against a pro-choice standpoint does play into my next point.

But first... has anyone been paying attention to american politics lately?

Yeah, yeah, I know I already did that opening, but there's just so much good stuff that I can use! Anyways, an advisor for President Trump said a phrase that sent shockwaves through some media outlets. Does anyone know what it was?

Alternative Facts

From the research that I've done, the entire pro-choice stance relies heavily on these alternative facts.

"What do you mean alternative facts?! Facts are facts! Why is the pro choice stance the one with "alternative facts"? Why aren't the pro-life facts "alternative facts"?"

I can hear someone screaming at me again. I guess I should explain. Does anyone remember section two? One cannot scientifically argue that a human life doesn't begin at conception. Even Bill Nye didn't in his "Can We Stop Telling Women What To Do With Their Bodies" video on the Big Think Youtube channel. Here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IPrw0NYkMg

Pay very close attention, because this video is a perfect example of a defense comprised of "alternative facts". First he starts off by saying

           "Many, many, many, many more hundreds of eggs are fertilized than become humans. Eggs get fertilized and by that I mean sperm get accepted by ova a lot.

And he's one-hundred percent correct. That is a scientific fact. Some zygotes (eggs that have been fertilized) never attach to the uterus. But there is a subtle switch in the next sentence.

           "But that's not all you need. You have to attach to the uterine wall, the inside of a womb, a woman's womb."

Right here, he is no longer talking about when an individual human life begins, he is talking about when a pregnancy begins. He avoided the scientific fact that a human organism is created at conception. But does he come back to it?

           "But if you're going to hold that as a standard, that is to say if you're going to say when an egg is fertilized it's therefore has the same rights as an individual, then whom are you going to sue? Whom are you going to imprison? Every woman who's had a fertilized egg pass through her? Every guy whose sperm has fertilized an egg and then it didn't become a human? Have all these people failed you? It's just a reflection of a deep scientific lack of understanding and you literally or apparently literally don't know what you're talking about."

See what just happened there? The "Famous Violinist" argument did the same exact thing. Both say "if giving the fetus rights is the standard, what about this?" Neither argue the scientific fact because you can't. Instead they bring up a hypothetical that has consequences. It's quite honestly a scare tactic.

In this case Bill Nye he should have stuck with the violinist approach, because this is just sad. If an egg never attaches to the uterus it then dies of natural causes. Bill Nye - my most favorite science guy - I have a question: since when do we sue when someone dies of natural causes? To say I am disappointed is an understatement. I mean if you can't trust Bill, who can you trust?!

Need an example of another pro-choice alternative fact?

        "Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact."

Brought to you by http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/abortioninfo/misconce.shtml

Again, the issue of a human life beginning at conception is skirted around, and instead we're looking at personhood. This statement is true DEPENDING on the definition of "person", which evidently is up for debate in some circles.

Merriam-Webster defines person as "Human, Individual".

Dictionary.com defines person as "A human being, whether an adult or child".

Using these definitions, the fetus should have constitutional rights, or at the very least, the right to life.

Then we have the Oxford definition of a person: "A human being regarded as an individual".

And here we have our conflict. As of now, the fetus is not being regarded as an individual, therefore it is not a person and has no rights. Granted, the definition of "person" gets more complicated when you throw in religion and philosophy, but they have no place in this discussion. Like I said in the first chapter, I'm only interested in the facts - not beliefs, theories, and speculation.

So why isn't the fetus regarded as an individual in light of our biological knowledge of when a human life begins? This is where the debate really gets interesting.

Because you have to start dealing with the law.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said before, any feedback or comments will only help me to make the chapters more clear. I don't care what side of the debate you're on, bring it on! :P

Now If i can just get someone to read this....