Biology, not theology

Monday, August 30, 2010

I'm noticing an interesting bait and switch that's happening in the abortion debate. Many pro-choicers with whom I interact consider themselves people of science. This tends to morph into an angry anti-theism, as well, to the point where they can't seem to avoid setting up religious straw men when the pro-lifers they're debating haven't uttered a single "G" or "J" word in the first place.

But for all this, science gets chucked out the window in favor of philosophy when pro-lifers present them with the science that a new human life is created at conception. The typical response usually goes something like this (all emphases mine):

Pythagorean Greeks, early Christian church fathers, Talmudic rabbis, Sunni and Shia thinkers, Hindu brahmin and modern bioethicists have grappled with the fundamental, ultimately unknowable, mystery: At what point in our biological development are we infused with a soul? At what point do we become human?

Very interesting questions. But not necessarily related.

Read on:

On May 14, the final day of their legislative session, MO lawmakers declared the answer, and last month, by withholding his veto, Gov. Jay Nixon signaled that he agreed. On Aug. 28, their answer will become the law of the land.

No, Missouri lawmakers weren't trying to define when we are "infused with souls." Frankly, when we are "infused with souls" is irrelevant to the abortion/life issue. And then:

"The life of each human being begins at conception," according to SB 793, which will add new regulations to the state's 24-hour informed consent law for abortions. "Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being." Those words will be displayed "prominently" on brochures that abortion providers will be required to hand out to every woman seeking the procedure — even if they don't happen to believe the Christian theology the words represent.

Wow, no media bias here! Since when is the scientific fact that a new human life is created at the union of sperm and egg (amphimixis) "Christian theology?" Oddly, I don't recall reading that in my Bible, but I do recall studying that in biology and health class.

When a human life begins is SO basic a concept that it's easily searchable online. Here's what WebMD has to say about "conception":

When the sperm penetrates the egg, changes occur in the protein coating around it to prevent other sperm from entering. At the moment of fertilization, your baby's genetic make-up is complete, including its sex....

Your developing baby is called an embryo from the moment of conception to the eighth week of pregnancy. After the eighth week and until the moment of birth, your developing baby is called a fetus.

Imagine the nerve, using "baby" and "fetus" in the same sentence, actually equivocating the two terms! Oh dear, Planned Parenthood and NARAL aren't going to like this...

But back to the original article, where thankfully, the common sense brigade came to the rescue:

But supporters of the new law say they see no conflict between religion and the law's definition of life.

Sen. Jim Lembke, R-Lemay, one of the sponsors of the bills, said the language on the new brochures "is not a religious statement. It's a scientific statement."

Those with differing beliefs "will have to take all the information given to them and make an informed decision," Lembke said.

And what could be wrong with an informed decision? I mean, it's not like the multi-million dollar abortion industry preys on women's fears, dispenses misinformation about fetal development and abortion risks, or refuses to let them see their own ultrasounds... er... right?

The sentiment expressed in the first of the new brochures' two sentences — that life begins at conception — has been part of Missouri law for nearly a quarter century. And scientists agree that when a sperm and egg unite, a living organism results.

But for philosophers and theologians, things get more complicated with the new law's second sentence, which asserts that abortion ends the life of a 'separate, unique, living human being."

"The distinction is between human life where you're talking about an organism as opposed to a human life in a moral sense," said Bonnie Steinbock, professor of philosophy at the State University of NY at Albany....

Notice, this article gave one sentence - ONE sentence - to the fact that indeed, scientists know when life begins. And then it gets philosophical. But why?

Could it be that in order to justify our actions (the deliberate killing of unborn humans to suit our own purposes) we must circumvent science? Must we assuage our consciences with the sentiments of "Well, okay, yeah, it's a human life, but..."?