Note:
Although I am a Catholic, my position on abortion is, obviously,
less like the current position of the Church, which asserts that
human life begins with conception, than like an older position,
as I understand it: Saint Augustine considered human life to
begin with the first stirrings in the womb. Regardless, I must
believe what I believe to be true.
If you ever have any science questions, don't
hesitate to ask. Although I'm...an artist these days, I was at
least once one of the best biological students in the country
(if you believe in standardized tests [I scored in the 99th
percentile on the Graduate Record Examination in Biology in
1977]). I still try to follow articles on science in general,
but I haven't been able to keep up with all the new
developments in genetics...
From what I gather, the basic idea behind stem
cells is that they're some of the first cells to form in the
human embryo and, thus, they have to go on to produce all the
other kinds of cells in the human body -- they're the ideal
candidates for growing new tissues and organs.
So then you get into the important but often
absurd science vs. religion debates like on the front page of
today's LA Times. When does human life begin? Well,
every cell in the human body, from the fertilized egg to the one
at the tip of your nose, is alive, all by itself. And each
living cell arose from the division of another living cell -- so human "life" never begins and ends, it just goes on and
on.
All this reminds me of the debates waged, what,
20 or 30 years ago about "when does human life end"? Most
law now says it ends when there is "irreversible brain
death". Not surprisingly, the same folks fighting abortion
rights now are pretty much the same cast of characters opposed
to "pulling the plug" back then.
Actually, if I believed abortion was the killing
of a truly human being, I too would be vehemently (although not
violently) opposed; and I respect anyone who values human life
(better than the alternative, like in Germany 60 years ago).
But, of course, there's something to be said for liberty, too.
Whenever I want to know about the "facts of
life", I go to science (beats the gutter!). And according to
the best neurologists in the world, the nerve connections
required for truly human thought, feeling, and awareness
do not form in the developing human brain until approximately
the 28th week of development -- although that figure can vary
somewhat, due to the individual or the experiment involved,
I've never seen a reliable figure of less than 25 weeks, and
28 weeks seems to be the accepted figure.
The point is, if we as a society have come to
accept brain death as human death, then it only stands to reason
that fully human life begins with the beginning of brain life --
truly human thought, feeling, and awareness -- exactly what
is required for a human "soul", if you believe in such
things (an eggplant or an elephant is a wonderful creature, but
without truly human thought, feeling, or awareness nor a human
soul, how could an eggplant or an elephant be held responsible
for its conduct, in a church or a court of law?).
The early fetuses shown in The Silent Scream
may have precious little toes and fingers and they may even let
out a scream, but so do terminally ill patients in a vegetative
state.
At this point in the argument many of the then
or previously pregnant ladies listening to me think me a
monster, although the "facts of life" are pretty well clear
on this point -- before the third trimester, the developing
fetus, let alone the earlier embryo, just doesn't have a brain
developed enough for truly human thought, feeling, or awareness --
"brain life".
So if people ask me if I'm "pro choice" or "pro life" (such euphemisms!), I have to say both
-- for
the first two trimesters I'm pro-choice; for the last
trimester, pro-life. So both sides hate me.
But when people say that's a weird position to
take, I have to refer them to the Big Decision: Roe vs. Wade -- something everyone talks about but few people really know about.
As I understand it, the Supreme Court ruled that states are not
allowed to impose very many, if any, restrictions on a woman's
right to an abortion during the first two trimesters; but the
states may impose many restrictions during the final trimester.
Although the logic cited was the "survivability" [viability]
of the fetus, I believe, that criterion relies upon the state of
medical technology, not the natural state of the developing
human being. Fortunately, as I see it, the ruling came down at
just about the right point, balancing the right to life of one
individual with the right to liberty of another.
I just wish both sides in the debate would be
less dogmatic and more understanding. Until now, the pro-choice
forces have pretty much held the upper hand -- abortion is
still legal for the most part -- but polls show that public
opinion has slowly been shifting the other way; and if the
Supreme Court were to now tip the balance, by reversing Roe v.
Wade, there'd be a lot of protest from many quarters, but
there'd probably be enough people squeamish about the whole
abortion issue to just let it pass (Who wants to be called a "baby killer"?).
Anyway, as long as we live in a country where
people are letting their conscience be their guide -- whichever
side of the issues they happen to be on at any given time -- then there's hope for America...
Whatever happened to "the good old days",
when things were just black and white?
