When does human life begin? It depends on where you live. While I don't like what that means for some states, the debate itself could be good for the future of reproductive rights and the sanctity of human life in this country. It could compel us to really think about what all this means, beyond the usual bashing with platitudes about God's will and personal privacy.
Abortion could become murder in Colorado if the backers of Amendment 48 have their way on November 4th. And if current polls are correct, it's going to be close. The proposed amendment declares that human life legally begins at conception. If passed, the amendment will render all abortions murder and hence illegal without overturning Roe v. Wade.
This decision will not be about privacy, women's rights, good health policy, better social policy or anything else. It will be a matter of law that life begins at conception and that will be that. And even though it's not a conclusion with which I am comfortable, those behind the law have the most important fact on their side i.e. when life begins is a matter of opinion.
I know that this will anger both sides in the ongoing debate about when life begins, but such is the truth, and so it has always been. That may be too painful for some to bear because it requires our admitting that those who died in the past may have been murdered or that we expended huge effort on trying to save people who were already dead -- effort that could have helped others who subsequently died.
Of course its more comfortable and convenient to simply insist that our definition of when life begins, whatever it happens to be, is THE definition. But that is both arrogant and foolish. And it makes for really stupid debates about public policy which ignore the fact that when life begins, like all of life's biggest questions, is a matter for ongoing re-evaluation.
Ancient Israelites, and subsequent Jewish law, did not deem human life to begin at conception. Though later Christian thinkers, interpreting the exact same verse (Exodus 21:22) insist that one is guilty murder for causing a woman to miscarry her child. This is just one example of how the same texts about when human life begins, have been understood in vastly different ways. And it is no different now.
That is why, even though I think that Amendment 48's definition of when life begins wrong, I can find nothing wrong with those who are trying to make it the law of the land. They are simply continuing a legal debate that has been going on for millennia. I would love to hear from anyone who might be able to explain what is legally inappropriate with their actions.
Though once we start down this road, it is important to ask those who support 48 if they plan to imprison women who smoke and/or drink during their pregnancies for endangering the welfare of a minor or perhaps even attempted murder? I also wonder what provisions they are making for insisting that pregnant women forgo potentially life-saving chemo therapy or radiation treatment, both of which could adversely affect the "little person" inside them. I am not trying to be glib. But it seems to me that the radical redefinition of when life begins ought to address the fullest range of these questions before being considered credible.
It may be a good idea to redefine when human life begins. I am also interested in thinking about new definitions of when life ends. How could we not be? We have lived through a century which saw the most radical advances in medical science ever --the kind of changes that always invite at least thinking about new definitions.
The question for me is what is gained and what is lost with each definition. Until each side 'fesses up about that, then they are not rethinking anything, they are simply trying to saddle all of us with a set of beliefs that only works for some of us.
That may be how to successfully market soap or soda, but hardly seems appropriate for scientists and theologians discussing one of the most significant questions in the world. Until that conversation is happening, no body should be voting on Amendment 48, or any law like it.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
Who says that abortion would be allowed if the mother's life were in danger?
The life of the fetus is of paramount importance. The mother would be expected to sacrifice her life raher than the precious little clump of cells.
Diana H:
If indeed I lived in Colorado, I'd most certainly be voting against Amendment 48. It has no regard for women at all. If it is passed (a horrible thought), there will be self-done abortions or back alley ones. Guess Colorado's leaders don't worry about such things.
The question is not whether life begins at conception, but who gets to decide when to end that life. 36 states have fetal homicide laws on the books. That means that 36 states recognize that if someone, other than the mother, decides to end the life of the unborn, it is a crime. If the mother chooses to end the life of the same unborn, it is perfectly okay.
We are pursuing a slippery slope with regards to our view of life and death in this country. Increasingly, convenience and money are the hallmarks for deciding who lives and who dies. For example, 90% of mothers who are told they are carrying a child with Down's Syndrome now choose to abort. 90%! And those who don't are even accused by some of "burdening society" by choosing to give birth to an "imperfect child". Killing off the infirm sounds eerily like other societies in our distant and not so distant past.
So, ending a pregnancy because the child is not "perfect" is now okay and even encouraged. Is it unreasonable to think that the next step is eliminating the one day old baby who has been determined to be imperfect? What about the one week old? The one year old? Where is the line? Why is it birth? The newborn most certainly is no more capable of surviving without someone caring for it than a 20 week old fetus.
What about children (or adults) who are born okay but who through accident or illness become "imperfect"? Surely, you don't expect a parent to be saddled with a lifetime of caring for a child whose brain is damaged beyond repair in a car accident! Think of how expensive that would be-- and the inconvenience! How can you expect them to make that sacrifice?
Do not think it is impossible. For a history of when it's been done before, you can read this blog entry:
http://downbloggers.blogspot.com/2008/04/bad-medicine.html
The age old argument..."When does life begin?" wont ever be agreed upon because everyone has an opinion.
I could never go through an abortion because all 3 of my children are miracles and to think of stopping the life of a baby/ embryo/ fetus is unthinkable in my eyes.
I watched my sister give birth to a disabled child when I was 28 weeks pregnant with my second baby. That baby was given only water and died after a long 3 weeks. It was horrendous to watch.
To the nurse who replied to this thread, I understand your views.
But still, I could not kill another helpless human being.
b'h
Who says that abortion would be allowed if the mother's life were in danger?
The life of the fetus is of paramount importance. The mother would be expected to sacrifice her life raher than the precious little clump of cells.
Not according to Torah.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.