< Back to Centerfire

Abortion

Abortion is a topic to be taken very seriously, but since I’ve voiced my opinion on just about everything else, I figure I may as well do so on abortion as well. Although individual sperm and egg cells exhibit many signs of life, they cannot actually be considered to be life as such, because one of the criteria for life is an ability to reproduce, and neither a sperm nor an egg cell can do that alone (the Virgin Mary aside). So when does a sperm and egg cell become life, and even more importantly, when does it become human life so that it is protected as such under law?. Actually, if I’m not mistaken, the Bible says it’s the equivalent of a crime (i.e., sin) to spill ones seed or sperm on the ground, presumably because it would be destroying potential human life. Fortunately not even the Pope tries to enforce such a ridiculous rule these days. In fact, the Catholic church actually supports the rhythm method of birth control even though it prevents what would have become a human life under normal circumstances (i.e., if coitus had taken place). Imagine what it would be like if converting all viable sperm and egg cells into human life were the law of the land. We would all be sex slaves and forced to endure continual orgies. What a horrible thing that would be!  

How about once the sperm has united with the egg?. The fertilized egg is still microscopic and can hardly be considered human, but is it life?. Is a fertilized egg more than the sum of its parts (i.e., more than the sperm and egg considered separately)? It certainly is in one respect, in that under the right conditions it can now grow and reproduce. Many people, including one of my heroes, Harry Browne - the libertarian party presidential candidate - assert that this is where life begins, and some say that because the fertilized egg now contains the complete human genome it is human life. The problem I have with this view is that these properties still do not make the fertilized egg particularly unique. Every drop of blood in your body and every living cell you are composed of is also a form of human life and contains the complete human genome. A cancer or other tumor cell has these same properties and it also has the ability to reproduce, but would you sentence a person to prison for getting a nose bleed or for having a tumor excised? I agree that this is where human life begins, but it still has a very long way to go before it becomes human. Anyone who would sentence a woman to prison or the death penalty for eliminating a microscopic single celled organism from her body at this stage should seek out a padded cell and professional psychiatric help. Even a $5 fine would be excessive.

So the fertilized egg begins dividing. It becomes 2 cells, then 4, then 8, 16, 32, 64,... etc cells, but it doesn’t even begin to resemble a human being for quite some time. I’m not sure how many cell divisions occur before the organism becomes what we call a fetus and begins to resemble a human being, but I think it takes about three months. I suppose the point at which the fetus actually becomes human and therefore subject to protection under the law is a matter of personal opinion. Science cannot and will not ever be able to answer this question for us, because the terms we use are defined by society rather than science. Science can tell us with reasonable accuracy what the sequence and timing of the events are that lead to birth, but it is up to humanity itself to define the very term ‘‘humanity.’’

I’m sure everyone agrees that brain activity is an essential element for human life. Not even the most vehement anti-abortionist would claim that an infant born totally without a brain (as a few rare unfortunate ones are) should be kept alive. In fact, I believe that consciousness or brain activity is the basis of what we mean when we refer to the ‘‘soul’’ or ‘‘spirit.’’ Since brain activity is essential for human life, one could credibly argue that abortion should become illegal whenever the fetus exhibits signs of it. However, parents and others might argue that use of this criteria would mean that the fetus isn’t eligible for protection under the law until it’s almost old enough to vote!^*.

My personal opinion is that as long as the fetus is dependent upon the mothers womb for life support, it is part of her own body and thus hers to do with as she sees fit. Only after the the infant takes the first breath of air on its own and the umbilical cord is severed, does it become part of the general body of humanity and subject to the same protections under law as individuals possess.


*   Note: If anyone who reads this is ‘‘brain dead’’ enough not to realize it already, that comment was supposed to get a laugh!