Miller and Mahurin both majored in philosophy, but share opposing beliefs on the morality of abortion. Amy Diaz | The Crow’s Nest
By Amy Diaz
Over a hundred people squeezed into the community room at Harbor Hall Thursday evening to listen as philosophy professor John Miller and local anti-abortion activist Scott Mahurin debated the morality of abortion.
The debate set out to find a positive discourse between the speakers and audience, but fell short on settling the argument.
Miller and Mahurin were firm in their beliefs, although they clarified at the beginning that they are friends, despite their disagreement on the issue.
“A fertilized egg is not a human being; it’s a fertilized egg,” Miller said. “An embryo is not a human being; it’s an embryo. A fetus is not a human being; it’s a fetus.”
Miller graduated from Gettysburg College in 1960 with bachelor’s degrees in Greek and philosophy. He received his master’s from the University of Maryland in 1963 and a doctorate in philosophy from New York University in 1969.
Miller has been teaching for more than 50 years. He taught at USF from 1966 to 1969 and is now an adjunct professor of philosophy at Hillsborough Community College.
“To think that to kill a fertilized egg, or a fetus, or an embryo is murder is just mistaken,” Miller said, explaining a biological timeline of development.
Mahurin argued that abortion is murder because it is the intentional destruction of a human life.
“At the moment of conception, all the DNA you will ever have is present,” he said. “All you needed was nourishment and room to grow.”
Mahurin graduated from the University of Idaho in 1999 with bachelor’s degrees in philosophy and history. He was a teacher for 18 years at various private K-12 Christian schools and is now the director of Florida Preborn Rescue, 555 76th Ave. N, St. Petersburg, a nonprofit organization that specializes in Christ-centered sidewalk counseling at local abortion clinics.
Mahurin founded the organization after seeing anti-abortion sidewalk counselors outside of a clinic on Central Avenue. He felt that there needed to be an anti-abortion presence at clinics in the area everyday the clinics were open.
The organization’s website encourages people to find the nearest abortion clinic and “go rescue the preborn and preach the gospel.”
Mahurin sought out a local professor to debate him publicly on the issue of abortion with the promise of a cash honorarium provided by the organization.
“Society recognizes that when a woman is pregnant, she is pregnant with a human baby,” Mahurin said. “Our laws recognize this. If a pregnant woman and her baby are murdered, the accused will face two counts of first-degree murder in the state of Florida.”
The two went on to consider the mother’s body as property.
“If she has any property at all, it’s her body,” Miller said. “Any legislature that would take away that right to do with her body, her property, what she desires is simply immoral.”
Miller went on to ask the audience if they would rather have women risking their lives trying to administer abortions themselves with coat hangers or laxatives.
Mahurin countered that he wouldn’t object to a woman getting other types of surgery.
“There’s another person inside the mother’s womb that needs to be protected too,” he said.
Miller argued that using the word “person” to describe a fetus, embryo or fertilized egg is stretching language.
They went on to debate about whether some lives have more value than others and how viability factors into the issue.
Miller argued that because the fetus is not viable outside of the mother’s womb, it cannot be considered alive or a separate individual.
Mahurin joked that he wasn’t even viable when he was 20 years old.
A group of five female students from USF Tampa protested the debate by wearing T-shirts that read “Not their issue.” The group wasn’t against the debate, but took issue with the lack of a woman’s voice and perspective.
Mahurin acknowledged the group toward the end of the debate, saying he appreciated their respectful activism but felt he was being discriminated against for his genitalia.
Additionally, he joked that they “assumed (he) was a man,” which sparked more jokes about gender identity from the crowd.
Before posing his question, one audience member announced that he was indeed a man but that he “identified as a musician.” Another woman in a “Pray to end abortion” T-shirt directed her question to the protesters: “Would you care about the unborn baby if it was a female?”
Kai Holyoke, one of the five protesters, said that men do have a stake in the issue, but that it comes down to a matter of perspective.
“As we saw in this debate, we spent at least 80 percent of the time establishing when a human was a human, rather than the women’s rights involved in abortion,” Holyoke said.
Perhaps more valuable than the debate was the conversation that came afterward.
Even after the question-and-answer portion of the debate, the hundreds of people in attendance turned to one another to share their thoughts and get insight into others.
The debate spurred a civil dialogue between people who might have normally been staunchly divided.
“Not a man’s issue”, yet Roe was decided by an all male US Supreme Court. Ergo, Roe should be overturned. She can do whatever she wants with her body? Then why is prostitution illegal? Her body? Then why doesn’t HER heart stop beating?
Roe was decided because in a patriarchal society women, especially back then, wouldn’t have the ability to do that. Why is prostitution illegal? Good question. Maybe we should legalize it and put in place certain governing bodies making it safer for the women who choose to do that. You act like magically no one does it because it’s illegal, bad argument n e x t. You should understand women want the ability to have safe access if necessary, not every woman wants to immediately get an abortion, but there are certain cases that deem it permissible. Your argument is just the same nonsense everyone else says and instead of forming your own opinions you just spew the same thing.