Okay, not many people know exactly what happens in pregnancy. Let’s establish a timeline of embryology. It really develops a clear-cut picture of what is going on inside the mother’s body and hopefully this will ground our discussion on reality rather than vague ideas. Major events:
-
Day 0: sperm fertilises ovum; resultant fusion is called a zygote and begins dividing. By the end of the week it implants to the wall of the uterus.
- Week 3: blood circulation links between mother and zygote. Zygote still nothing but a ball of cells being fed nutrients to continue division.
-
Week 4: begins formation of brain, and spinal cord.
-
Weeks 5-8: Begin formation of major organs.
All organs complete by the end of 2 months; only now is it referred to as a foetus (3cm in length).
-
Weeks 8-38: foetus grows bigger, with most growth happening in the last trimester. Refinement of some organ systems.
Keep in mind that most women only take a pregnancy test when they notice a change in pattern, or absence of, their usual periods. So for the most part, she’s been presented with the information about 4-8 weeks into pregnancy. The zygote is still developing, and none of its organs nor nervous system are complete.
Let’s be clear about this: pro-choice does not mean we are happy about abortion. It is only giving the parents the right to making an informed decision, and giving her the opportunity to follow up with a solution.
Another clarification: I do not think that taking a life is abhorrent. You seem to have an absolutist mindset that no human has the right to do so. It’s not the action that is importance; it is the intention behind it. You mentioned that people on life support should never have it pulled away from them. I find this incredibly unethical because you seem petrified with taking the life rather than examining the quality of life that the patient has left. Yes, he or she may squeeze another few months or years, but do you think that continuous pain, misery, and disability is a popular way to continue? You are more worried about the individual act of euthanasia, rather than the intentions behind it, or the consequences following.
Taking a life can be an act of supreme kindness. Extend this to stem cell research (we can get into that later if you wish), IVF, or abortion as you please.
For some reason, you’ve given us three separate ideas of what being “alive” means. You’ve claimed that it begins at conception; and later that it is any cell undergrowing growth, development, or healing; and later again as the potential to be become another human individual. Let me take each in turn.
[ 1 ] The problem with the pro-life stance is that there is no basis on which to define when something is “alive”. It may be simple to state that it begins at conception, but for what reasons? If you believe that there is a ‘soul’ whispered into the zygote when fertilisation occurs, then I ask on what evidence you believe this is the case. What is the soul, where can I find it, what effects does it have on the person, how does it integrate into our current understanding of the human condition? There is inherently a trap here, for if you are unable to express exactly what you believe, then on what grounds of evidence do you believe it? It seems strange that an objection can be raised so strongly to something that you cannot begin to explain. And furthermore, on what grounds should the procedure be absolutely prohibited to what should be considered a rational and secular legal system?
[ 2 ] If you define life to be a more vague concept of cells dividing, growing, and differentiating, you run into even more complications. For what reasons do you place human lives over any other living organisms? We are made up of the same organic compounds and the language of genetics is shared. If this is your definition of life than swatting a spider should give you a greater moral dilemma than aborting a developing zygote or foetus. And if every human life deserves to be spared because of a great ‘something’ inside all of us, I refer you to the problem outlined in my point above.
[ 3 ] A third definition will be summed up as “the potential to grow a human being”. A cell is a cell is a cell. Each has equal potential given the right conditions. Every time you scratch your nose, you are committing a genocide of potential twin brothers of yours. Does a cell inside a womb hold more value? If yes, then why the objection to embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and IVF – all of which take place outside the womb? Under your own initial assumptions you have dismissed one scenario whilst continuing to protest against others which have similar foundations. The argument from a cell’s potential gets you nowhere.
In conclusion, my points raised:
Taking a life is not morally abhorrent, so long the intentions are good.
Abortion is ugly for all involved, but it should be about minimising harm not prohibiting procedures.
Don’t create laws banning abortion unless you can define what it is you object to.
I personally draw the line where the baby stops parasitic activity. Once it’s out and that umbilical cord is cut, it’s your responsibility to take care of your child.
EDIT:
what about this chris? Doctors and nurses promised to save life. Abortion breaks the Hippocratic Oath
The Hippocratic Oath says no such thing. It is a statement of maintaining ethical conduct, and in no way absolute. In fact, it aims to take into account
what is best for the patient, and that also means treating with our utmost ability combined with their wants, needs, and rights as individuals.
In fact, the actual translated line is more akin to "Do No Harm".
