Claudia and Duffy

Declaring that life begins at conception is convenient for a wide number of reasons, but not without its problems. As long as we believe that anything capable of becoming a being that we would recognize as a human is human, we're in some sense obligated to preserve it, right? What about the fact that up to two-thirds of all fertilized embryos fail to implant on the uterine wall? Does that constitute abortion, and if so, what are we supposed to do about it? I mean, it's at least theoretically possible to insert something like an anti-diaphram, right? Should women be obligated to use such a device after every roll in the hay?

Sounds silly, doesn't it? In truth, it's a good thing that most of them don't make it: sometimes embryos don't implant because they aren't viable, so saving them seems like an exercise in futility.

But it's entirely consistent with the standard pro-life line. So is eternal life support for people who should, by all rights, be long dead. Just because we can do something does not mean that we have to or even necessarily should do it. This applies to things that pro-lifers don't like, such as genetic research, just as much as it does to things that pro-lifers do like, such as saving every embryo imaginable.

So, does "life" "begin" at conception? Sort of, I guess. There are certainly biological processes that get their start at that time, but wouldn't you say that both the male and female gametes have to be alive for anything to happen? What, logically, distinguishes an unfertilized egg from a fertilized one? Is there reason to believe that this is a less arbitrary distinction than being born seems to be?

I don't have answers to any of these things, but I've reached the point where I'm no longer willing to buy into any strict pro-life stance: it's too simplistic.

Ryan,

It's clear who you think is responsible for the abortion of fertilized eggs by this line:

Should women be obligated to use such a device after every roll in the hay?

Hopefully, before you marry and begin lovemaking, you'll assume more responsibility as a man for preventing sin and guarding life. If put that kind of responsibility on women and treat lovemaking as cavalierly as 'a roll in the hay,' then you apparently have some growing to do before you are ready for the responsibility of husband-hood and father-hood.

Ryan -

Yeah, it's the whole thing about the difference between negligence and action. In a way, the same problem with negative and positive laws - like, there's a heck of a lot of difference between "you must not go through a red light" and "you must wear a seat belt." But I won't stay up late talking about that right now.

I'm just completely fascinated, these days, with the human body and what the heck it means that we are bodied creatures. Why are we? Why aren't we just completely spiritual? What on earth is so important about physicality that God made us that way?

I'm sick of leftover mashed Plato, and I want to know what importance that dozen cells in that photo actually have. Until we figure out how our spirits and bodies exist together, "life" is a really messy term.

Ryan,

I like that you used the phrase "roll in the hay."

Who actually rolls in what hay? It's not a practical term. Sounds itchy.

If you can't pin the inexplicably entangled body and soul at conception where do you? Perhaps at some other point the body is mystically endowed with a soul by some complicated manner. Why should it be that a body has a soul at all if not at the point of conception? And if a body has no soul why preserve human life at any point in it's estimated 75-120 years? Everything has a beginning.

[-p]

"Life begins at conception" is a statement that we can't make with certainty. But I think Ronald Reagan said that we should assume that it does, to be cautious. And the story of John the Baptist leaping for joy when he sensed Jesus in Mary's womb should certainly gives us pause, as Christians.

"[E]ternal life support for people who should, by all rights, be long " bothers me, too. I don't understand, and I've blogged about it before, why Christians, who know that is not the end, are so concerned to prevent it that they'll preserve life no matter what condition one is in. I was reading in World magazine about a mother who sued to have her critically ill baby kept on life support despite the fact that she's almost certainly in constant pain. "Pro-life" without any concern for quality of life is not true pro-life, in my opinion.

As for the most recent post, chimeras are creepy. I don't know how I feel about them - I'm sure some are all right, but I don't like anything that involves implanting human cells in an animal brain.