Alright. So there's been a lot of talk about this recently.
People debating whether or not this is a person, a valuable life, a human being
to be protected or something that's more easily disposable. So let's simplify this
conversation a bit by considering the S.L.E.D. Test. A four-part discussion that
confirms the value of all life. I've heard a lot of people say, "how can something so small
be a person?" Well I'm just curious... why can't something so small be a person?
Let's think about it this way. We have three different people here. All
different sizes, all different ages. Is the smallest person less valuable than
the bigger person just because she's smaller?
So what makes this any different? If size has nothing to do with the value of a
human being, how can we say that the life inside of a womb is of less value
simply because it's smaller? Surely the fact that the unborn is less developed
in the rest of us means something right?
I've heard this question a lot... "How can something that's not even fully
developed yet be a person?" Imagine if your development or abilities determined
your value as a person... We'll take this duo here for example. One of them, well
he's practically Einstein and the other... well she's getting there. But just because
she's not as developed as he is yet, does that make her less of a person?
So what makes this any different? If our level of development doesn't make or
break our value as human beings, how can we say that a life inside of the womb
is of less value simply because it's not fully developed yet? Then there's the argument
about this... I've heard a lot of people ask, "is the unborn really a person if it's not
in the world yet?" First let's start by saying they are in the world, just in a
different location. Let's think about ourselves. Our environments are always
changing, but as we know our personhood always remains the same. So let me ask... if
the value of personhood is determined by one's environment, does that mean our
value changes when we move from place to place? So what makes this any different?
If our environment has nothing to do with our value as human beings, how can
we say that the life inside the womb is not a person just because its
environment looks different than ours? Additionally personhood is not defined
by this...
"I've heard a lot of people say the unborn is totally dependent on its mother, so how
can it be a person?" I just gotta ask... why can't it be a person? Let's take this
little guy for example. He's 21 months old and he can do some things on his own:
play with toys and run around. But there's still a lot he needs help with...you know like
general hygiene, putting on clothes and eating. But just because he still depends
on his mom for all of that stuff, doesn't make him any less of a human does it?
So what makes this any different? If personhood is not determined by our degree
of dependency how can we say that a life inside the womb is not a person just
because it depends on its mother for survival?
Seems pretty clear when we look at all of these arguments whether it's size,
level of development, environment, or degree of dependency, that none of them
define our personhood or our value as human beings.