Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cylixd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!cylixd!charli
From: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: So, where DOES it start?
Message-ID: <257@cylixd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 11:27:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: cylixd.257
Posted: Fri Sep  6 11:27:07 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 04:45:16 EDT
References: <24000001@ccvaxa>
Reply-To: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Organization: RCA Cylix Communications , Memphis, TN
Lines: 43
Summary: 

>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