When Beliefs Intersect

This month, we have been talking about the need to develop our communication skills, particularly in the areas and topics that we are culturally brought up to not talk about. Namely, politics and religion. Now, on their own, each of those subjects can seem like trying to navigate a minefield when trying to have a civil conversation with someone who disagrees, but what about when those two triggering topics intersect? In our current season, there seems to be one major area where exactly that is happening and, again, it’s such a hot button issue that just saying the word will get this video shadow banned. Stick with us as we talk about abortion.

When engaging a topic creating as much of a firestorm as abortion, if you want to get anywhere at all, both parties have to enter the conversation with an assumption of good faith. That means that you are preemptively agreeing to give the other person the benefit of the doubt, that their position is grounded in a desire to do what they think is right and not attributing malice. You are also agreeing to speak truthfully without using unfair tactics to make the other person look stupid or wicked; no intention of “gotcha” moments. You will also lay out your position as clearly as possible, allow the other person to lay out their position in their own words without your presuppositions, and continue the conversation by leaning into the areas of disagreement while extending mutual respect and courtesy. One of the best ways to begin and to avoid getting bogged down in semantics is by defining terms.

When it comes to the abortion debate, many potentially productive conversations are undermined before they even get started because of the words. One early example is the “blob of cells” or “blob of tissue” terminology. Now, these terms have not been largely used in the legitimate discourse surrounding abortion for a while, but for decades this was a go-to line. The reason it has fallen out of regular use is because, eventually, the term had to be defined. What is a “blob of cells?” Well, using terms like “cells” or “tissue” automatically give the phrase the appearance of being scientific or medical. Words carry with them levels of importance and esteem. Afterall, most of us aren’t using those words on a day-to-day basis outside of health or science class grade school, so in our minds there is an automatic association. But, from a purely materialistic perspective, you and I are also just a “blob of cells.” In this worldview, we are all nothing more than cells, stacked on top of each other, presenting the appearance of what we call a person, but that is just a sentimental word for “blob of cells in the shape of a person.”

This may sound like a gross oversimplification, but it is exactly this worldview which produced the extreme environmentalist movement. If we are all nothing but a blob of cells or tissue, then we hold no real significance over any other animal, plant, rock or particle in existence, and of all of the other particles, we’re the only ones starting nuclear wars, destroying the earth with our pollution, and taking the lands that all of the other blobs of tissue were living on. This is where eco-terrorists draw their views from, but again, this viewpoint is self-refuting if we stick to the definitions of terms. If all existence is just a random structure of cells organizing themselves into various appearances with varying degrees of the illusion of order, purpose and meaning, then there is no difference in destroying or creating. If the principle found in the first law of thermodynamics is true, that matter never disappears or ceases to exist – it just changes forms, then any attempt to assign a hierarchy of value to one blob of cells over another is irrational emotionalism and definitely not scientific.

Clearly, the “blob of cells and tissue” arguments become problematic when held under even mild scrutiny, so of course they are not used anymore, right? Well, not exactly. Somewhere along the line, the words “blob of cells or tissue” got switched out for something sounding even more scientific – fetus. As in, “It’s not a baby, it’s a fetus.” This clear distinction between a human being outside of the womb against this other, non-human thing inside of the womb seemed like it would settle the debate, but again, we need to define terms. Afterall, the word “fetus” was not a new invention, in fact, it is an old word. An old word in Latin. So, what happens when you translate this old Latin word into modern English? Well, google translate is vastly unhelpful for some unknown reason, translating the ancient Latin word fetus into ... fetus. Translate.com also fails here. Thankfully, the Cambridge dictionary clears it up: “a human being or animal as it is developing in the uterus before birth.” The etymological meaning of the Latin word fetus also further clarifies the word as meaning “the young, while in the womb.” In other words, fetus does not give a distinction of type, but rather a distinction of location. So... it’s a baby. Fetus means baby.

So, does this mean abortion is officially debunked? No. This is just one side of the argument and one specific example. This is a debate that has been going on for much longer than any of us have been alive and it is not going to be won in a single 5-10 minute video on YouTube, especially if they decide to block it – which they very well might do. But, we do hope that this has given you an example of how to take an opposing argument, listen, understand and then engage in a civil, respectful and maybe even convincing way.