The abortion debate is always a complex one, with many levels to it. Where the pro-lifers tend to lose out is when they object to aborting a pregnancy in its very initial stages. They have to fight the hardest when dealing with the first few weeks of a pregnancy–the “day after” pill, for example, or abortion very early on–because most people just intuitively do not equate a near-microscopic clump of cells with a human life that can be “murdered.” Ergo the emphasis on placards bearing photos of bloody six-month-old fetuses and the whole “partial-birth” red herring. And it brings to the forefront the predominant issue here: when does life begin?

This question is why I believe that the abortion debate is, at its foundation, a religious one, and thus my belief in pro-choice is partly founded on First Amendment issues. Not that privacy issues don’t apply, but I really do believe that belief is fundamental here. And it’s not just me–anyone who believes that life begins at conception because that’s what their church tells them must feel the same way.

Not that they readily admit it–I have encountered several people who are deeply religious, absolutely believe that life begins at conception, but in the context of a debate refuse to admit that the two points are in any way related–they insist that their belief about the starting point of life is based upon reason, not faith. But then none of their arguments about why life begins at conception–if they indeed have any–hold out for very long.

One of the arguments I have heard the most often is that life begins at conception because that is when the genetic code is formed: once a zygote forms, you have an established genetic code that forms a new person. This, however, is confusing time sequence and form with quality. A corpse also has a unique genetic code, as do the countless bits of skin we shed every day; this does not make them living human beings. One would also then ask about genetic twins–they begin as a single individual and do not split until, usually, a few days after fertilization (some split much later than that). At fertilization, there was only one life; days later, there are two (and possibly more after that). This does not make much sense if fertilization is the beginning of life, as splitting also begins new life.

Another common argument is one of potential: once an ovum is fertilized, it has the potential to form a human life. The thing is, before fertilization, the separate gametes also have the potential to form a human life; we are again confusing time sequence with quality. The “potential” argument is dangerous because if you take it to its logical and rational end, you are forced to concede that any lost opportunity to conceive a child is equivalent to murder. If aborting a day-old zygote is murder because it has the potential to become a human being, then using contraception is similarly murder because you are blocking exactly that potential. Similarly, any ovulation of a woman that is not met with a reproductive coupling is also murder, as there is a potential for life and you are keeping it from taking place. We reach the logical but absurd end to that argument by concluding that once a female reaches menarche, even at age ten for instance, she must be impregnated at every opportunity until she reaches menopause, lest she and her potential mate become serial killers.

Furthermore, a zygote and an undifferentiated cell have essentially the same genetic code and can, depending on external influences, both form a human life. But one is supposed to be “human” and the other not. I once made that point in a discussion forum, pointing out that any cell which could potentially be used to create a new life, such as with cloning, would also have to be considered “human” and its life potential carried out, with its discarding being equivalent to murder. The person on the other side of the argument berated me for using a “science fiction” argument, pointing out that higher mammals cannot be cloned. I pointed out that, science fiction or no, the argument still made a valid point because we could be pretty sure that it would some day come to pass. It just happened that only a few months later, news of Dolly the sheep became public.

The conclusion that I have come to is that in the end, the life-begins-at-conception mindset, if not religious, is certainly just another case of finding a convenient landmark and becoming attached to it, and is no more superior from a logical or rational point of view than is any of the other landmarks, such as viability.

For me, higher brain function remains the most logical indicator of when life begins, as we tend to equate that activity with human life. A living human becomes a corpse when higher brain function is lost; does that not indicate what we consider most relevant?

But even that is far from certain; no indicator is. But one thing is clear: most people consider a freshly fertilized ovum as not being equivalent to a human being with rights. Everyone (or so close to everyone as to make no difference) considers a newborn baby as a human being with rights. And the number of people who believe that humanity exists increases as one moves from the zygote to the newborn.

A few years back, I blogged on abortion and wrote about the Roe v. Wade decision, and how the specifics of that decision, while nominally based upon medical privacy, in fact resembled more a timeline of general belief:

The Roe decision enumerated the stages of pregnancy and the restrictions involved in each trimester. In the first trimester, abortions are allowed generally without restriction; in the second, restrictions may be applied but may not transgress upon the health of the mother; and in the third trimester (or viable stage), the health or life of the mother is the only allowable excuse for an abortion to be carried out.

The question is, how does privacy dictate these three levels of restriction?

It seems to me instead that the divisions in Roe reflected the increasing likelihood of a fetus being a full-fledged human, capable of being ‘murdered,’ as the pregnancy progresses. It begins with a single fertilized cell which most people would have trouble acknowledging as a murder victim, to a fully-developed fetus at 9 months, ready to be born, which few would say is not a human being. So, for most people, there is a line between those two points at which the fetus crosses that vital threshold–but also for most people, it is questionable exactly where that line exists.

Ergo the divisions in Roe: abortions fully legal in the first trimester, somewhat restricted in the second, and heavily restricted in the third. But, at least to me, this does not reflect a rationale of privacy, but rather a recognition of the decision of where to draw the line of life increasing in difficulty as the fetus develops. …

This is ultimately a matter of belief. And that belief is rooted in one’s views of life, the universe, and everything, to steal a phrase. In other words, it is a spiritual or religious decision. And that clarifies the entire matter for me considerably: the state cannot force a certain religious or spiritual viewpoint on its constituents by statute. You can’t make a law that tells people what religious opinion must be followed upon pain of imprisonment. Each person has the right to determine their own stand on the matter. You cannot make a law forcing one to observe the religious determination of when life begins any more than you can make a law forcing people to observe religious doctrines concerning diet, dress, behavior, or worship.

This is why I see abortion as not primarily a Ninth Amendment issue of medical privacy–though that would serve just as well as an alternate reasoning–but rather that the legality of abortion is a First Amendment issue: every person has the right to religious belief, and one belief is when human life begins. Society has a right to enforce some restrictions based upon near-universal agreement–you cannot claim that your religion says that life begins 30 days after birth and so infanticide is a religious right. But to impose a total ban on abortion goes too far in the other direction, taking a religious belief held by some and enforcing that belief upon others by force of statute.

Thoughts?