Why Good Faith and Denying Personhood are Incompatible

Who gets to define the lexicon of the public square? Abortion Advocates in Arizona launched a citizen initiative to restore abortion protections from the Roe v. Wade era.

Feeling confident they could get the initiative passed, Arizona for Abortion Access is now crying foul because of the language used in the educational materials published by their political opponents.

Republicans responsible for crafting the pamphlet’s content used the term “unborn human being” to describe the entity at the heart of the debate — the unborn child.

One of the primary reasons the left gives for opposing the term “unborn human being” is reflected in a recent AP article: “…abortion foes have long worked to give embryos and fetuses the same legal and constitutional protections on par with those of the women carrying them. The issue was highlighted recently when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are legally protected children…”

You read that right. The left’s objection to the term “unborn human being” is based on personhood. When Roe was overturned, the legal force of the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, “the word ‘person’ does not apply to the unborn …” was lost. The lack of personhood was the justification of abortion nationally.

In response, Arizona for Abortion Access sued to have the language changed to something more impersonal and innocuous — fetus.

Ironically, this only reveals their ignorance. Fetus is Latin for “offspring” or even “newly delivered.” But because “human” and “person” are synonymous in our culture, the left is attempting to codify Roe in the minds of every individual by not allowing the word “person” to apply to the preborn.

Their effort to shift the terminology to “fetus” is more than a semantic preference; it’s an attempt to redefine the discourse in a way that aligns with their agenda.

The Maricopa County Superior Court initially sided with the abortion rights advocates, but the Arizona State Supreme Court overturned this ruling, allowing the use of “unborn human being” to stand. This decision is significant, not only for its legal implications but also for its reflection of a broader societal debate about the value of human life and the ethics of abortion.

We can breathe a sigh of relief for free speech. But there’s more to this picture.

While it is troubling that the left would attack free speech and expression in order to pursue an agenda, what is more troubling is that they would continually attempt to deny personhood to an entire class of human — those who have not yet been born. This brings up the question: who defines personhood?

Ultrasound technology has vividly demonstrated the complexity of the unborn child, showing features and movements that make it clear that we are talking about a developing human being. But the mere fact that a preborn baby is a human being does not tell us why he or she deserves protection or personhood status.

Like our “certain unalienable rights,” all people are “created equal” — this is a core tenant in Western Rule of Law. Rights and humanity/personhood are a given reality and are not open to redefinition.

Here’s where it gets ironic. The left is hyper-concerned about the language of their political opponents, but actively seeks generic and flexible language in the legislation they propose. For example,

If the Arizona Abortion Act were to pass, it would permit unrestricted access to abortion up to 24 weeks gestation, but also permit abortions after 24 weeks under the “good faith” of the medical professional. This lack of clear, objective criteria opens the door to potential misuse and lack of accountability, posing risks that could undermine the integrity of the legal and medical processes involved.

Moreover, babies born before 24 weeks of gestation are often able to survive and thrive. Thus, a medical professional acting in “good faith” towards a baby born prematurely would act to bring that baby to healthy maturity. How can “good faith” mean life to one 24-week baby and abortion to another?

Put simply, exercising “good faith” while exterminating the life of an “unborn human being” is oxymoronic, revealing the belief that individuals or circumstances, not a Higher Power, define personhood.

Critics of the term “good faith” in this context may rightly be concerned about the potential for abuse. The reliance on such a subjective standard could lead to justifications for ethically dubious behaviors.

This highlights a crucial aspect of the debate: language is not merely a tool for communication but a reflection of deeper values and beliefs about human life and its sanctity.

Ultimately, the disagreement over language in this context is emblematic of a larger clash over the fundamental nature of human existence. The insistence on using terms like “unborn human being” underscores a commitment to recognizing the inherent value of life at all stages of development.

Everyone communicates from a worldview and presuppositions about what it means to be human. As citizens, we must identify those presuppositions in our elected representatives in order to hold them accountable, ensuring that all people are blessed and protected — from the womb to the tomb.