Monday, February 18, 2008

Must we be logical?

On Valentine's Day, I published a letter to the editor in the Broomfield Enterprise. I was responding to a letter by John P. Cardie, "Definition of life must be logical," dated January 6. In that letter, Mr. Cardie stated that if we defined death as the absence of brain waves, then we must define life as beginning at that point when brain waves can be detected in the fetus--about 8 weeks. Here is my response:

Definition of life not right answer

I write in response to John P. Cardie’s letter of January 6, 2008, “Definition of life must be logical.”

Mr. Cardie makes an interesting point about defining human life to begin when brain waves can be detected in the fetus. I am not a doctor or medical researcher, so I will not challenge the information he presents. I would like to make another point, however.

When people say that human life begins at conception, they often fail to mention that defining human life that way changes the definition of personhood under the law. A “person under the law” has certain rights, including the right not to be killed. One’s enemy in war is not a person under the law; nor is someone sentenced to death a full person under the law: both of them may be killed without that killing being defined as murder under the law.

In the history of US law and English common law on which it is based, an unborn child has never been defined as a person under the law.

Some people in the United States sincerely want to change that, thinking that they will save lives. However, to define human life as beginning at conception would change that ancient precedent and create a kind of civil rights conflict that we have not faced before: two persons in the same body competing over rights. That situation would not be good for anyone.

If fetuses became persons under the law, that new status would not be used to benefit them, for example, to guarantee prenatal care for those women who wished to be parents. It would instead be used to further restrict the ability of women to have abortions when they do not wish to be parents.

Reducing the number of abortions is a laudable goal that should be accomplished by providing comprehensive sex education and making contraception easy to obtain. Trying to reduce abortions by redefining the beginning of human life will only cause more problems and lead to lawsuits.


***

Let me know if you agree or disagree.

2 comments:

Todd Bradley said...

I agree. Having two people in one body certainly raises some interesting - and probably unsolvable - legal problems.

Did your response get published in the Enterprise?

Price of Silence said...

It did get published, on Valentine's Day, which I thought was ironic.

I agree that the life-beginning-at-conception approach causes big legal problems. And I think they would be resolved to the detriment of women.