A recent post by Dan, called "Resist", drifted somehow to a tangential conversation (I used the word loosely) on abortion. This discussion (I use the word loosely) was a good presentation of the routinely disingenuous style of discourse we've long come to expect (and are never disappointed in doing so) when engaging Dan on most any topic.
The off-topic debate focused on the definitive point of contention regarding the abortion issue: is a human fetus (or embryo or zygote or whatever) "fully" human and therefore equally worthy of having its young life protected in the same manner as anyone who has been fortunate to have been allowed to exit the womb without being killed by its mother? Somehow, Dan just doesn't know the answer to that question. He believes...scratch that...claims that there is no way we can know...that science cannot tell us when one is actually endowed by its Creator with the right to life as it moves from conception onward. It is for this reason that while he claims that he would not have an abortion were he a pregnant woman, he cannot bring himself to support denying other women who seek this heinous option when dealing with a pregnancy that in over 90% of the cases (if not higher) where that option is considered, the woman willingly engaged in the act that, by nature, is designed to bring about new life.
Now, it would be bad enough to pretend this was a legitimate position to hold, considering the stakes. It isn't as if the issue is no more weighty than eating red meat (I don't eat red meat, but I wouldn't deny others the right to eat it---I don't mean me. I love red meat!). It's far closer in reality to allowing others the right to hire assassins. (I would never hire an assassin(abortion doctor) to kill another person(unborn human being), but I won't deny anyone else the right to do so(hire a doctor to kill their own child). (By the way, Dan, that's what an analogy looks like.)
In this debate, he puts forth a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary to support his position that the fetus might not be fully human. From his comments, I reproduce what he put forth as that Oxford definition:
"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from
other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate
speech, and upright stance."
Using Dan's own peculiar and deceptive argument, one could say, "Oxford isn't saying anything with regard to whether a human fetus is or isn't included in the definition of a Human Being." A more honest response was what I put to him following this attempt to pretend a human fetus isn't. It simply compares adult or child humans with the closest animal equivalent. (And it doesn't use the expression "fully human" in any event) I would suspect that were Oxford to consider other stages of development beyond merely adult and child, it would include the human fetus, embryo or zygote as additional stages of human development, and thus all Human Beings. As it stands, the Oxford definition is poor evidence in support of Dan's premise.
Dan also uses one of his extremely poor attempts at analogy by illustrating his point with regards to an apple pie before and after it comes out of the oven. Before, it is merely a mix of ingredients and isn't a pie until it is done baking. This analogy is absurd because a child unborn is not a "mix of ingredients" any less so than any other fully development human being. Unlike a pie, a person is constantly developing, with "ingredients" dying and being replenished to one degree or another throughout that person's entire existence. Hair continues to grow. Cells are replaced. Damaged parts are as restored. More importantly, when the child emerges from the oven (Momma's womb), it is not "fully baked" as it were, but still developing for a good 18 years or more. The pie isn't fully formed until it is done baking. The child in the womb is fully formed at whatever stage of development it happens to be at. Again, the distinction is between fully human and a fully developed human being. Dan conflates the two without any evidence in support of the argument that his arbitrary line of demarcation is worthy of respect by honest people of character and virtue.
Then comes the punchline. After all these and other arguments defending the unborn...arguments that actually relate to available scientific facts and data that undergird our pro-life position, Dan then goes on to suggest that our arguments have led him to reverse his belief that abortion is immoral. That is, he no longer believes it is because of our arguments that fully support the premise that it is! It takes a lot of gall to put forth such an absurd notion. The truth that is more likely is that he couldn't find a way to actually justify his support for abortion for any reason. His former claim that he would not have one himself were hollow at best, if not an outright lie.
I have to think that his defense of infanticide is similar to his defense of homosexuality. He knows people who have had abortions and, by golly, they're just such nice people and wonderful, loving Christians. This is, for Dan, what passes for "embracing grace". While actual Christians try to appeal to the sexually immoral, with love and understanding, to seek forgiveness of God for their immorality and repent of it, Dan chooses instead to enable it. That's not a Christian response to immoral behavior. It is complicity...aiding and abetting. He may as well be aborting those defenseless children himself.