Could one person carry 500 zygotes out of a building in an emergency in the time he could carry out an infant under 15 pounds? Would they survive outside a lab? Probably not, so the question is moot. To answer your question, though, I’d save the baby before the zygotes, but I’d do my damnest to also save the zygotes by keeping the power on and the lab conditions they’re in at an appropriate temperature. Both have value.
I favor strict restrictions on abortion. I’d allow it in cases where the life or mental or physical health of the mother of the mother were so endangered by a continued pregnancy that abortion was necessary. In such a case, an abortion would be self-defense, which is allowable by every major religion.

Andrea, how do you feel about Plan B? If it could be proved that it resulted in far fewer medical abortions would you allow its use — even if it occasionally results in some embryos not being implanted?

I believe life begins at conception. Plan B prevents implantation, if I remember right, so it’s a question of how fine a line you draw at what conception actually is. I don’t LIKE the idea of Plan B, no, and I think its use should be actively discouraged in favor of encouraging first abstinence and then birth control if people are going to have sex for whatever reason. However, I’d probably find Plan B slightly less objectionable than surgical abortion later in the pregnancy. Abortion after a child is viable (at about 20 or 21 weeks) is completely and utterly unacceptable to me. Before that time, it becomes more objectionable the closer the pregnancy is to the third trimester. But that’s my personal opinion and I suspect it would be considered a sinful and wrong-headed opinion by my childhood priest.

Steven, you are absolutely right. If human life does begin at conception, and if there is an absolute right to that human life, then the usual “rape, incest or the health of the mother” exception is logically inconsistent.
But what on earth makes you think this issue is still connected to logic?

A more serious question I have often asked and have Never received an answer to from Pro-Lifers is, “If you get your wish and abortion is illegal, what are the legal consequences for a woman who has an illegal abortion? A small fine? A large fine? Jail time? How much or how little jail time? If she has young children, are they taken from her since she tried to “kill” one of her “children”? If a husband/boyfriend calls 911 and says, “My wife/girlfriend just drove away and is threatening to have an abortion! Help?”, does the 911 operator ask for the license plate number so the police can track her down and arrest her? What does “abortion should be illegal” really mean??? No Pro-Lifer will answer these types of questions, but they Are relevant.

> “In such a case, an abortion would be
> self-defense, which is allowable by
> every major religion.”
From a Catholic perspective, self-defense involves acting against an unjust aggressor. A baby cannot act unjustly.

The hypothetical makes people uncomfortable precisely because it runs up against the difference between a very abstract bunch of moral claims and some more fundamental ones. It takes a lot of conceptual juggling to decide that embryos, despite lacking anything at all that we might call a moral capacity, are to be treated the same way as a thinking, feeling, being. And the hypothetical throws a bit of a dash of cold water on that juggling act.
We all agree that there is a class of beings called “persons” which we think are morally significant. But what about them makes persons so special, and unlike other things (insects, birds, rocks, etc.) And what gets a particular being membership in this group?
The reality is that we all have some very basic understandings of what’s important about “persons,” learned from long experience interacting with them. Human societies have developed a concept of rights over a long history of interactions, fights for justice, and mistakes. Concepts like dignity and so forth were all developed out of those _actual_ interactions with non-fetal humans and their very directly relevant feelings, passions, senses of justice, and so on.
But into this comes the declaration that suddenly, none of the qualities and characteristics actually matter at all. Since all persons we know of are human beings, something this means that all things that can by SOME definition be called a human being are then declared to be persons. But this is really nothing more than equivocation: using one sense of a word and then changing it later.
Even a million embryos destroyed in a fire will still not involve any them suffering in the slightest, feeling that injustice was done to them, regretting anything, or anything else. But obviously a child burning in a fire WILL experience all these things. Most people cannot help but instinctively know that there is a HUGE moral difference there: between a real being with a past, with memories, expectations, social bonds, hopes, dreams, fears, and globs of cells that have none of these things but are merely, in toto, carrying out processes that will one day potentially build a being that has those capacities, but simply does not exist yet in any form relevant to the core of that being and what makes it special and unique and morally important.

“From a Catholic perspective, self-defense involves acting against an unjust aggressor. A baby cannot act unjustly.” Not true. Catholic sef defense doctrine allows you to use deadly force, if needed to protect your own life against an agressor. The agressor’s mental state is not necessarily relevant. The agressor does not need to intend evil to be an agressor. The agressor could be mistaken, coudl be insane or unable to recogzine the peril. The agressor only needs to be acting a away to cause you ahrm. The Churhc draws a distinciton between “material” agressors and “moral” agressors.
A baby implanted in a fallopian tube probably qualifies as a material but not moral agressor

Your NameUnapolgtic Catholic, I agree with the distinction between material and moral aggressors, and also the legitimacy of defending oneself against any aggressor, regarding of the aggressor’s intent.
However, both material and moral aggressors are in a separate category from the “innocent”. And the Church clearly teaches that a baby implanted in a fallopian tube qualifies as innocent.

“And the Church clearly teaches that a baby implanted in a fallopian tube qualifies as innocent”
And justifes the surgery to remove it and terminate its life, because the mother will die unless the surgery is performed.

I would not die to carry a pregnancy to term. I’m not a saint. Abortion in a case where a woman’s health is at risk from the pregnancy is regrettable, but I call it self-defense. I’m pro-life, but I see some shades of gray here. As far as a penalty for abortion, I’d probably class it as involuntary manslaughter, depending on the circumstances behind the abortion, and the penalty would probably be community service at a women’s clinic and/or a small fine.

“And justifes the surgery to remove it and terminate its life, because the mother will die unless the surgery is performed.”
The Church does in fact justify the surgical removal of the fallopian tube which of course will have the tragic side effect of the baby dying. But it does not justify the killing or removal of the baby directly, e.g. by using the drug methotrexate.

Thats true, but the Church has been unable to make a moral distinction between the two that makes one speck of sense. I suspect this is what Steve Waldman was gettign at. There is probably a very large number of Americans who agree that abortion shoudl be permitted when the mother’s physical life is in danger. M y guess is that number is well over 90%.
His “500″ hypothethical is designed to draw out that almost all Americans do not see the zygote as entitled to full legal protection even if they can’t articualte a reason why. That opinion is most evident when the mother’s life is at risk. The vast majority of Amercans will choose the mother over the unborn. They seee no pricipled distinction between a salpinectomy and methotrexate. To the extent Americans are willing to allow abortion to save the mother’s life, they are not “pro-life” as that term is commonly used. The Catholic Church’s position is more restictive than that. It prohibits abortion even when the mother’s life is threatened.
If you define “pro-life” more broadly, to include permitting abortion only when the mother’s life is threatened, you will be in favor of more abortions than the Catholic Church is, but still in favor of allowing a relatviely few number of abortions.
The vast majority of Amercians still belive that this is too limiting. The vast majority of Americans also would allow abortion in cases of rape or incest. This position is rejected by the Catholic Church and many people who are pro-life. Depsite that, the vast majority favor abortion in cases of rape or incest partly because they see the zygote as not quite entitled to full legal protection at the rsik of significant emotional harm to the mother–the point made by Steve Waldman’s thought experiment.

Unfortunately, for promoters of Plan B – there is no evidence that it lowers the number of pregnancies or abortions in a population. One of Plan B’s leading promoters, James Trussell has publicly rejected his previous estimates for how many pregnancies and abortions this drug would prevent. That hasn’t stopped Planned Parenthood from continuing to use his previous estimate.
There’s also no scientific evidence that Plan B prevents implantation.