My imaginary dialogues with abortion rights advocates

I talk to myself, so why not talk to imaginary people? Here are some of my internal dialogues with abortion rights advocates ("AA"):


Dialogue, Thread A:

Me: Do you think the unborn are as human as you are?

AA: Yes, I do.

Me: And you still think that a mother should be able to abort that baby, who is as human as you are?

AA: Yes, I do.

Me: So, some humans have rights and others don't have any?

AA: Yes, that is correct.

Me: Doesn't that mean that one set of humans (the born) get to determine whether or not other humans have the right to live or not?

AA: Yes, that is correct.

Me: Do you think that's moral in other situations, or only with born vs. unborn humans?

AA: {I don't know how this thread ends, because I haven't yet gotten an answer.}


Dialogue, Thread B:

Me: Do you think the unborn are as human as you are?

AA: No, I don't.

Me: What do you think they are?

AA: They are potential humans.

Me: At what moment do they become fully human?

AA: At viability. {Other answers may include: At brainwaves, at heartbeat, at the beginning of the second trimester, at birth, three months after birth, etc., etc.}

Me: Is that objectively true, or is that simply your opinion?

AA:  I have thought about it at length, and that's my conclusion.


Me: So, it's an opinion?


AA: {silence.}

Me: How do you pinpoint the exact second that humanity begins, so that we don't accidentally kill any innocent people?

AA: We can't pinpoint an exact second, but it's a good estimate. 

Me: Isn't that arbitrary?

AA: Well, we have to draw the line somewhere.

Me: Why do we have to draw the line anywhere? Shouldn't we always err on the side of life in something this important and irrevocable?

AA: {Actually, I am not sure how this thread ends, either, because I've never heard this question answered.}

Dialogue, Thread C:

Me: Do you believe that the unborn are as human as you are?

AA: Well, they are human, but they are not "persons."

Me: What is the difference? 

AA: "Personhood" of a fetus is something to be determined by each pregnant woman. Only she can decide when her fetus becomes a "person" to her. It's a woman's right.


Me: Is there any objective standard for "personhood"?


AA: Well, some say that "personhood" is determined by conscious thought and memory.


Me: So, an Alzheimer's patient in the final stages, or a severely brain-injured adult may no longer be considered a "person"?

AA: Well, some people argue that that's the case, but I don't subscribe to that. It's extreme.

Me: What is the essential difference between a post-conscious Alzheimer's patient and a pre-conscious fetus?

AA: The the fetus has never lived a real life.

Me: How do you define what is "real" life? Isn't that arbitrary?

AA: Yes, maybe, but remember, it's a woman's right to choose to assign meaning to the life within her.

Me: So, the woman gets to decide the "personhood" of another?

AA: Yes.

Me: But it still seems so arbitrary and subjective.

AA: Wait, there is an objective standard, if that's what you are looking for. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1973 that "personhood" begins at birth, and that's when the fetus gets legal protection.

Me: So the government can legitimately decide when someone is a "person" and thus entitled to the full spectrum of human rights?

AA: Yes.

Me: Are you okay with that?

AA: Yes, of course. I fully support Roe v. Wade.

Me: Would you support the government defining the "personhood" of other groups as well, like when the Supreme Court declared that black slaves were property, and not fully human (Dred Scott decision)?

AA: No! Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Me: Can you tell me the salient difference?

AA: {I don't know how this thread ends, either, since I have never heard the answer to that one.}



Okay, there you have it. Yep, that actually is what I do in my spare time, ha ha! I've got other imaginary dialogues, too, but I will save those for later. If anyone wants to complete any of the threads or tell me where I went wrong, that would be great!