Given that fully two thirds of all fertilized human ova die before they see the light of day, abortion is clearly mother nature's way of correcting mistakes. Although the estimate is rough and there's not a whole lot of information available on fertilized eggs that die either before implantation or soon after, it seems fair to credit the calculations provided by a fellow, Dean L. Sinclair, in an effort to give serious consideration to the potential consequences of assigning personhood and the attendant social obligations at the moment of conception.
The idea is attractive from an ethical standpoint, but the societal consequences of attempted implementation would be little short of catastrophic. The result would be the virtually total subjugation of the rights of on group of humans, people of child-bearing capability, in particular. women, to a new classification of human, even, in logical extension' to before they would exist as a fertilized egg.
Hold that thought. The "subjugation ... of women...before they would exist as a fertilized egg." Forget that it would seem to be practically impossible. What's to prevent all women, including their eggs, from being classified as slaves and then, as they are born, the males are freed?
What a wonderful world that would be!
If you want to quibble with the number of fertilizations mother nature aborts, note in the following report from the American Journal of Pediatrics that they are not being ejected because of the "local or endocrine environment"-- i.e. the pernicious influences of foreign objects like the despised IUD or the mother's chemical imbalances are not being considered here.
From a study of 34 early human ova (24 normal and 10 abnormal) recovered from a series of 107 patients known to be fertile whose conditions for conception were optimal it appears that the maximum fertility rate at implantation is 58%; the maximum normal fertility rate after the twelfth day of ovular development is 42%; the probable maximum fertility rate during the preimplantation stages is from 80 to 90%; the greatest ovular loss is in the preimplantation stage; the next greatest loss is during the week after implantation; the ovular loss after the first missed period may be as great as 28.6%, either with or without clinical signs and is therefore comparable to the clinical abortion rate; these defective human fertilized ova rise because of intrinsic defects rather than from defects of the local or endocrine environment, and, finally, the fertility rates and fate of fertilzed ova are roughly comparable in man and other mammals.
While this abstract from the Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics does not provide much information, I'm going to cite it because the language seems telling.
The high rate of implantation failure in humans following in vitro fertilization (IVF) has been attributed to a lack of production of immunosuppressive factors by cleaved embryos, rendering them vulnerable to maternal immune attack just before or around implantation. Systemic as well as blastocyst-secreted suppressor factors have been described and claimed to be responsible for successful pregnancy....zygotes after decoronization were individually cultured during 24 hr on lymphocyte proliferation as well as natural killer (NK) activity....
It creates the distinct impression that somebody believes a woman's immune system needs to be "suppressed" to protect embryos from a "maternal immune attack"--i.e. the "natural killer."
Of course, if it is true that only one third of fertilized ova ever see the light of day, without any extraordinary measures being taken to assist mother nature, then the preconceived notion that women are inherently antagonistic to life and the human species will die out if this antagonistic stance is augmented by social support, might have some basis in fact.
On the other hand, when we look at the pattern in all of nature, it seems pretty obvious that there always many more failures than successes (just look at how many acorns an oak tree puts out) . And why wouldn't it make just as much sense to argue that, if pregnancy suppresses a woman's immune system and makes her more susceptible to viral or bacterial attack, it's the embryo and fetus that represent a danger and it's mother nature that needs an assist from time to time. That is, if the already existing person has any value.
While Sinclair takes the argument a bit far,
In the future it may be possible to lower the death rate by a parental screening process so that activities that could be considered "preconception abuse and neglect" will be ruled out. There needs to be instituted as soon as possible a licensing program for prospective originators of new life to make sure that they are physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually and economically qualified to take on the responsibilities of gestation and subsequent parenthood.
people who don't like other people's children anyway, would find little to object to in this prescription. Besides, since they're already here, it won't affect them. Note that nowhere in these ruminations does the word "paternity" come up. That, I would argue, is because the preconceived notions from which these arguments flow are primarily held by men--men who, for some reason, have a problem with mother nature and women, in general. Women who aren't submissive are ipso facto antagonistic to their interests and the proof of it lies in the fact that their paternal potential is likely to be aborted at any moment.
Of course, the idea that paternity is evidence of potency is itself a preconceived notion for which there is no basis in fact. But then, that's the beauty of notions. They arise from emotions or passions and require no fact. For the idealists of contemporary America, the idea is the beginning and the end. No facts are required. Indeed, that facts are ignored tells us that the agenda is sui generis, a figment of the imagination.
I'm a little uncomfortable with this conclusion because I am still convinced that money is also a figment of the imagination. But money is different. Money lubricates our material and intellectual transactions, serving as a facilitator of trade and exchange. The notion that those who reproduce are fundamentally antagonistic to reproduction and must be subdued to insure that male potency can be expressed is self-centered and self-referential and wrong. In that it violates the premise that man is not only social, but that his survival depends on the ability to trade and exchange. Predatory domination is a threat to society and thus, in the long run, to man himself. Not only is the existence of the predator brutish and short, predatory species are destined to become extinct.