preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (09/03/85)
Just out of curiosity, where do some of you pro-life people draw the line on life? Consider two hypothetical possible birth control strategies, one not unlike some current methods, one representing a relatively modest medical advance: (1) a pill taken by a female which makes the womb unreceptive and keeps the fertilized egg from taking up residence (2) a monthly pill or process (perhaps the "flush" mentioned in a Pohl short story) that causes anything that has taken up residence to be ejected (the flush in the story also made periods less obtrusive, but that's not the point) How do you feel about these? In neither case is the question of pain relevant, we're talking about clumps of cells here with no nervous system at all, even if the process involved pain, which we hypothesize it does not. Clearly there is no argument that there has been experience or awareness. Do you distinguish between the cases? Do you object to one or both? -- scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/06/85)
>Just out of curiosity, where do some of you pro-life people draw the >line on life? > >scott preece I am not speaking for all pro-life people. I am probably not even speaking for most of them. The consensus among pro-lifers is generally that human life begins at conception. By this definition, both the forms of "birth control" that you hypothesized are really abortifacents. As such, both would be equivalent to abortion, and most pro-lifers would oppose both. (Note: Apparently the only reason such pro-lifers don't oppose IUDs is that they don't know how they work.) I've studied a bit of biology, and know a fair number of competent biologists. Most consider it obvious that *life*, in a strictly biological sense, begins at conception. The disagreement starts when you discuss life in a metaphysical sense (i.e., is it *human* life?). The simplest answer is that it certainly isn't a dog or an elephant; of course it's human! This answer is appealing precisely because it is simple and straightforward. I would accept a legal/medical definition of the beginning of *human* life as the point that the fetus has a functioning brain. Brain function is, after all, what most states use for the definition of the end of life. The symmetry and logic are appealing. I would also accept a legal/medical definition of the beginning of *human* life as the point at which the developing embryo is biologically "committed" to becoming a single individual. If the zygote or embryo still has the potential of twinning or becoming a chimera, it isn't *quite* the same as an individual human. After all this, I would like to add that, by the strict religious and moral standards by which I rule my own life, I would still consider an abortion before these points wrong. It would simply be a different (and less serious) wrong than an abortion *after* these points. (An imperfect analogy: destroying canvas and paint is a different and less serious wrong than destroying a Rembrandt.) I would not expect to get a consensus in the society for banning abortions before these points, but I might expect a consensus for banning abortions after these points. charli