Abortion and the Heartbeat Bill

Whilst on Facebook, this post came across my feed:

The one thing that immediately stood out to me is this: it just doesn't do what the person sharing the post claims it does, it doesn't make an "open and shut case" for rejecting the Heartbeat Bill, nor for the justification of abortion. For those not aware, the state of Georgia recently signed into law the Heartbeat Bill, which effectively states that an unborn child with a detectable heartbeat (roughly 4-6 weeks gestation)[1] is to be viewed as a legal person worthy of rights and protection. The text of the bill can be found in the footnotes.[2] Listed below are my reasons for holding that this post doesn't provide an "open and shut case" on the topic at all, but rather merely builds up a strawman with next to no proper representation of that which it intends to tackle. Scientifically speaking, abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, as is evidenced by the science of embryology[3][4]. You'll notice how they don't make any efforts to refute the core argument espoused by the pro-life position, but rather makes caricatures such as "women aren't made to carry babies for men", insinuating that it's only men who are pro-life, seeking to subject women to the whims of "the patriarchy". This is nothing but a strawman, and in no way represents the opinions of those who do oppose abortion. But if one looks at some of the leading pro-life groups out there, they will notice that they are headed by women (Live Action and And Then There Were None - Prolife Outreach spring to mind). However, one will notice that this argument is rooted in an ad hominem and genetic fallacy - either the arguments from pro-lifers are true or they're not, the gender of the one presenting the argument has no bearing on this. People need to start addressing the arguments that are put forward rather than commenting on the person putting the argument forward. They do make a point I happen to agree with though: "a heartbeat isn't what makes a person a person". And I would extend this by saying neither does the unborn moving 8 inches down the birth canal. The question of what makes a person a person is philosophical in nature, and as of such should not be for the law to decide. Simultaneously, it can't be properly addressed with arbitrary answers based upon the unborn's size, level of development, environment, and their degree of dependency. For taking those considerations to their logical conclusion leads to justifications for the killing all those who are smaller, less developed, from a different location, and more dependent on others than you. This topic requires very careful consideration; the rhetoric we often see in these discussions just doesn't provide that. In reference to their example of deciding to take someone off of life support, that is far different from the dismemberment that takes place in abortions, where the unborn will likely live and grow if the abortion procedure doesn't take place[5] In anticipation of responses along the lines of the quality of life of the child, or the health of the mother, the 2017 report from the Department of Health[6] indicates that 2% were carried out under Ground E - the risk that the child would be seriously physically or mentally handicapped. While 98% are carried out under section C (risk to the mother's *mental* health, though this falls under F99 of the International Classification of Disease (ICD-10),[7] which reads "Unspecified mental disorder". The parameters for providing abortions in the UK are set out in the Abortion Act 1967, specifically under section 1, subsections a-d.[8] Given that this bill is active in the US state of Georgia, it would be remiss of me not to list some data on abortions in the US: The number of abortions provided by Planned Parenthood in 2017, according to their latest report, is 332,757.[9] Of the reasons given for the procurement of an abortion, only 6% reported concerns for their own health,[10] this was provided by a report that was published in 2013, so if someone can find more recent data, please do share, I desire to be as accurate to this topic as possible. Rather conversely to the arguments from proponents of the pro-choice side of the debate, we see that abortion is more often sought after for socioeconomic reasons than anything else. One thing I will note in passing is the adverse mental health risks to those who do have an abortion, as presented in a study by the British Journal of Psychiatry[11] The closing sentence on the post is a cause of some concern, for the comment is apparently from a post which requested that those who agree with the Heartbeat Bill to "unfriend" them. I find it interesting that we have devolved so much as a people that we are unwilling to even engage in conversations with people with whom we disagree, to the point of suggesting that they "unfriend" us from social media if they so much as possess thoughts contrary to our own (I wonder to what extent this transfers into the real world?). We create these echo chambers to protect ourselves, but all it does is insulate us from the rest of the world. While it may allow us to maintain the ideas we have, it does not give us the freedom to critically analyse those ideas in light of reality. Ideas have consequences and if we do not allow ourselves, or others, the room to challenge the validity of those ideas, we may end up hurting ourselves and/or others down the road. There is more I could say on this topic, but I will leave it at this: we should not be so quick to vilify and alienate those with whom we disagree, for in doing so we only limit ourselves opportunities to learn and to grow; if there is no one left to call us out when we are living in falsehood, then in falsehood shall we remain.

---

[1] What to expect, Fetal Heartbeat: The Development of Baby's Circulatory System, <https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/fetal-heart-heartbeat-circulatory-system/> [2] LegiScan, Bill Text: GA HB481. <https://legiscan.com/GA/text/HB481/2019> [3] Princeton.edu, Life Begins at Fertilization. <https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html> [4]Princeton.edu, WHen do Human Beings Begin? "Scientific" Myths and Scientific Facts. <https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html [5] Live Action, Abortion Procedures: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Trimesters. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFZDhM5Gwhk&ab_channel=LiveAction [6] Department of Health & Social Care, Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2017. <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/763174/2017-abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-revised.pdf> [7] World Health Organisation, The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Diagnostic Criteria for research. <https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf> [8] Abortion Act 1967,  §1(1)(a-d). <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1> [9]Planned Parenthood, 2017-2018 Annual Report at 25, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/4a/0f/4a0f3969-cf71-4ec3-8a90-733c01ee8148/190124-annualreport18-p03.pdf [10]BMC Women's Health, Understanding why women seek abortions in the US. <https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29> [11]Priscilla K. Coleman, Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abortion-and-mental-health-quantitative-synthesis-and-analysis-of-research-published-19952009/E8D556AAE1C1D2F0F8B060B28BEE6C3D>