There is nothing more difficult to reconcile than two sharply divergent views on the definition of human life. Competing viewpoints leave open, in fact almost mandate, that what one person calls perfectly acceptable, another will call murder. Nevertheless, unless we are going to kill each other over the difference, until one side or the other prevails, by exterminating the other, we must continue to talk about it. Kill for life never has made much sense as a program, no matter who tried it.
Science definitely disproves that “life” begins at “conception.” Life, has been continuous from one generation to the next, back to the first cell, which in some manner or other was the ONLY case of spontaneous generation, life from non-life, whether by random accident or divine creation. A zygote is most certainly alive, as is an anthrax spore. Sperm and egg are alive before conception occurs, and most of the sperm tragically die, those who lose the race. Skin cells are alive. So are liver cells. The real debate is about HUMAN life, not life. The real question under discussion is:
Does a unique human being, fully distinct from the mother, a distinct person fully worthy of the protection of the law, exist from the moment of conception?
“Yes” : This answer relies on the undoubted fact that the zygote contains within itself a unique new combination of 23 chromosome pairs (or maybe an extra one in case of Down’s syndrome), plus the undoubted fact that this cell, if its growth is not impaired in some way, accidental or deliberate, organic or mechanical, will naturally grow into a baby which will emerge by live birth into the world.
“No” : This answer relies on the fact that the zygote, and many successive stages yet to come, are completely dependent upon, and necessarily reside within, an individual woman, from which they cannot be removed or transferred without destruction, and, that these stages lack some essential characteristics of humanity, such as awareness of surroundings, consciousness of self as a person, ability to respond in a uniquely human way to their environment, not the response of a tadpole, or a frog, or a fish, or a chimpanzee, but the response of a human being. From this viewpoint, the fetus is a partial construction of what may become a human being.
The facts cited by each side are indisputable. The real argument consists of upholding the relevance of certain facts over other facts, or in denying facts which may support the disfavored argument, from the viewpoint of the speaker.
Every skin cell contains all the same genetic material as a zygote. One of the great mysteries, and the subject of stem cell research, is what makes one cell become part of the skin, and another become part of a heart, or the intestinal lining, when they all contain the potential for any type of cell, or of an entire new human body. The skin cell holds all the potential of a zygote, and the zygote has all the independent consciousness of a skin cell. Thus, the zygote is live, it is human, but it is not a person. It is not a human being.
The presence or absence of an Electo-Encephalogram (EEG) signal is a good measure of when a HUMAN BEING exists inside the womb. It is already used to determine when a patient is legally dead, even when a heart beat may continue. Metabolic independence also provides a worthwhile working definition — could the fetus function, metabolically independent of its mother if, like McDuff, it was “from its mother’s womb untimely torn.” We all destroy life every day, and we all destroy human cells every day, so the question really is, is THIS cell, or THIS mass of cells, a person, an organic, complete, human BEING?
Most people who insist that a zygote is indeed a complete human being have evaded the cold hard question, what exactly do you want to do about abortion? Do you want to send a woman to prison for life because she had one? Do you want the doctor who performed it executed by lethal injection? OR, are you really saying, “I want every pregnant woman considering abortion to hear my voice and what I have to offer from my experience, before she decides”? IF the last statement is the real point, then there is no cause for debate. Expression of that viewpoint is most certainly protected by the First Amendment. It MAY be right, for all we presently know.
We all know in trying to argue about what is scientifically established, a great deal of intellectual dishonesty occurs. Unfortunately, this particular medical procedure is a political football, with both sides trying to prove that their position is in perfect accord with all scientific, as well as emotional and spiritual, criteria available, while the other side are a bunch of heartless and/or brainless cretins. The pro-life side deserves credit for seeing more redemptive possibilities in the pro-choice individual than some pro-choice lobbies see in the devoutly pro-life. But both side play rough, and both sides bend any available fact to their intended purpose.
Actually, neither a sperm nor an egg is alive. It’s in the weird psuedo-life category of things that exhibit some characteristics of life, but not all, like blood cells or viruses.
By the way, you might want to keep in mind that some of the reasons you gave why a zygote might not be alive also apply to infants, people with certain disabilities and the very old.
Name one.
I think there is a small audience for reasonable discussion. Most are already convinced on the issue. My remaining hope is that we can get the two sides to work together to reduce the numbers of abortions. In that regard, I think both sides are sincere in wanting to reduce the numbers, but few are willing to budge even the tiniest bit. Their positions are more important than helping people.
While I think your point about punishment is true, I think this is an emotional topic, not one of logic. Those who oppose abortion are unlikely to worry about being philosophically coherent when they think lives are at risk.
Steve
I insist on talking directly to people who believe that any abortion is murder, not because I agree, nor because I expect to convince them soon, but because we have to exist in this world. I’ve been having some fascinating conversations at Gerard Nadal’s site.(http://gerardnadal.com/2010/01/). It can get a little tense sometimes, but we must continue to talk, and to do so respectfully at least some of the time.
Well, you’re a brave man, Siarlys Jenkins. A brave one–or a foolhardy one. Or perhaps just less jaded than I am about this subject. I think it is very unlikely that “pro-life” forces will ever join in any effort to reduce the number of abortions that does not involve punishing women. The only realistic way to reduce abortions is to empower women. There are several approaches to that: increased education and access to contraception for the younger women; a strong social drive toward educating men on their responsibilities; continuing progress toward economic equality for women; and economic assistance to render mothers independent of men. All of these things are anathema to the religious right. What they really want is to put women back into a place where they will have less agency, no independence, no right to make their own decisions about sexuality, and where any time a man impregnates them, with or without their consent, they will be forced to give birth. Thus, there will never be any cooperation between them and more liberal forces. If any of you right-wing religious folk out there want to contradict me and show how you really want to empower women and help them raise all those babies you’re going to insist they have, go for it. But please don’t bring up the usual crap about donating Pampers to the local Birthright organization. That’s a ridiculous drop in the bucket, and you know it.
As a life long Protestant who counts two Roman priests among my personal friends, although one hasn’t been speaking to me the last couple of years, perhaps I can afford to recognize the humanist component in the Roman faith, which was kind of obscured for you by your Catholic upbringing. I admit, all the best jokes I ever learned about priests and nuns I heard from students at parochial schools. Who else knew enough to come up with those lines?
But, if you have ever had to go head to head with Calvinists, you learn that once you go from Wesley’s free grace for all to Jacob Arminius, you arrive at a non-ecclesiastical position that is nonetheless denounced by Puritans as borderline Catholic because it finds some relevance in good works or leading a good life, or trying to.
I’m not convinced that there are not people within the Roman church who would come around to empowering women, although, it is true that before the humanitarian arguments seemed to gain more traction, portions of the church were really more interested in punishing the woman for (a) having a baby out of wedlock, or (b) being a woman at all, even if married. You know, sin is all your fault, if it wasn’t for women men would be blameless, ad nauseum. The church really has a very diverse history.
Oh, I agree with you completely, Siarlys, about the diversity and humanism present within Catholic tradition. In fact, one reason I’m so very angry with today’s intransigents is that I believe they have besmirched and trampled on those aspects of the Church that I still love. They’re arrogant enough to consider themselves the sole heirs to a great treasure. It’s partly because of them that I was forced to conclude that this is no longer a tradition I can, in conscience, support. I used to think the Church could change for the better. Sadly, these people have convinced me that’s not true.
Kill for life never has made much sense as a program, no matter who tried it.
It may seem a contradiction in terms; OTOH, isn’t “stopping the Holocaust” often cited as a reason why WWII was a “just war”? IIRC, we also had people demanding “humanitarian (military) intervention” to “stop genocide” in Darfur, Rwanda, the Balkans, etc.
I’d like to think both sides were susceptible to reason & common agreement, but methinks if this were true, the abortion issue wouldn’t (still!) be haunting our politics decades after Roe. Nevertheless, I’m glad to see at least one pro-choicer addressing the question of personhood. My personal preference is Carl Sagan’s: personhood begins at the onset of brainwave activity.
Call me pragmatic, but I’m okay with the idea that even though the embryo is a distinct human being, United States law recognizes birth as the time when a person acquires full legal protections.
How do I justify that? Because it makes a lot of things much simpler that otherwise the legal system would have to get all squicky into.