First, let me premise that I agree, in substantial part, with the article I'm about to link to. I say this because I want to warn you; most on this board will find the column disagreeable and perhaps even shocking. Now, I'd like you to
read the following article in its entirety before continuing with the discussion.
Ok. I want to try and spell out where I stand so everyone knows the cards I put on the table before I go on. I believe in the sacredness of human life and as such:
- I do not believe in the death penalty.
- I do not believe in abortion although I recognize for women the issue is a complex one.
- I do not believe in the late term abortion bill as I think it is a terribly inappropriate for congress to pretend at playing doctor.
- I do not believe in the ban on embryonic stem cell research as I do not believe any acceptable definition of a human being can be based upon the moment of conception.
- I do believe in the recent fetus protection bill.
Now, I do not wish to delve into all of the reasons and background for the aforementioned beliefs. Rather, I give them as a general background so that people might get a preliminary understanding of where I am coming from and so orient themselves toward what I'd like to discuss: the debate about abortion in this country and where I feel it is headed.
For me, the whole of the discussion -- and where I think it is headed -- can be summed up like this: we do not believe in the selective killing of human beings. So then, what exactly is a human being??
Which leads to the inevitable subject matter and the reason I agree with the column linked above. It seems to me that we are headed in this country towards a re-evaluation of when a fetus becomes a human being. I think it is important to take this discussion seriously and to rid ourselves of the edifice of sloganeering.
If we do not, we risk surrendering the outcome of the discussion to those who would take the extreme tact of defining a human being, for religious or dogmatic reasons, as the slug of cells formed immediately upon conception. Worse, we risk surrendering the discussion to those who would profess to protect the sperm and the egg as sacred.
How do we define when a fetus becomes a human being? To me it is clear that both extremes in this debate are untenable.
On one end of the polar extreme, we must recognize that any meaningful definition of a human being has to begin sometime before the actual physical act of birth. Today, you would be hard pressed to find any significant segment of society with support for late term abortion as an elective procedure.
On the other end of the polar extreme, we must recognize that any meaningful definition of a human being mustn't be based upon the moment of conception. Conception is an unstable edifice upon which to build a definition of human life. Why? Any successful definition of 'human being' must incorporate the concept of individuality. Even several days after conception a human embryo may split thus smashing the notion of conception as a fount of individuality.
Which leaves us with a largely uninformed -- however crucial -- decision to make! Exactly when does a human being form in the womb of the mother? It is my belief that through scientific improvement and ongoing discussion, we as a society are going to forced to some conclusions in the next few decades.
Until then, I remain humbled by my own ignorance and frightened for those who must make life changing decisions without recourse to an unambiguous picture of the moment of human creation.