2/28/2004 02:17:00 PM|||Andrew|||I went out to a pro-life protest/rally today, something I've never done before. Apparently, the president of Planned Parenthood, Gloria Feldt, was here in Bryan doing a fundraiser at the Hilton conference center. So I went out with some RUF people and stood in the numbling cold for about two hours. It was interesting...different. We were sort of perched on two sides of this street near the Hilton, and on the other side different speakers came up and told stories, gave statistics, etc. There were about 250 people there, so when the sound system died about 3/4 of the way through, we stopped being able to hear at all. Before it died, it would come and go about every five seconds, so all I could hear were random bits of speaking, seemingly unconnected. "Planned parenthood has commited these atrocities which...and the plight of African Americans will...hurt women, they do not help us..." and so on. I was sure as in anything I've ever seen that I was experiencing some kind of spiritual warefare right there, at that moment. I was afraid and I prayed.

But the whole rally got me to thinking about abortion. I've always thought that the two sides seem to shout back and forth at each other, never really communicating, never really progressing...just shouting. The prolifers shout: "You're killing babies!" The prochoicers shout: "It's a woman's choice! It's her body!" Now here's the thing: I'm sure that everyone agrees that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent. I don't think that prochoicers would condone infanticide, for instance. Also, I'm sure everyone agrees that it is the individual's right to look after and make choices about their own body. I can't see Congress passing a law saying that it's illegal to eat lots, get fat, and sit around all day.

The issue, then, is not about killing innocents. It's not about the rights of the indivdual. The issue is a definition, very simply. The central question of the abortion debate is this: at what point does the bundle of cells growing in a woman's womb become a person. That's the question in need of discussion and exchange, and I Do think that if the two sides realized this and sat down at the table and talked about it, that some real work could be done.

The two extreme views would be either that the moment of fertilization marks the beginning of personhood, or that the moment of birthing marks the beginning of personhood.

In attack of the morning-after drugs, prolifers argue that even from fertilization, there is a person inside the womb, and to deny it implantation is to effectively kill it. However, I'm not sure this can be right. In the normal course of events, some fertilized eggs never implant to the walls of the uterus. Do millions die each year because of this normal pyshiological function? Will God take all these hypermiscarriages (so to speak) and have their souls in heaven? I'm not sure. It's possible, but to me, it doesn't make great sense.

On the other hand, operations such as partial birth abortion, where abortion on fully grown baby is justified merely by the fact that it's head has not yet moved from the womb to outside the womb, are utterly gruesome. Americans see this, hence the growing support at state and local levels for bans on this procedure. To define personhood based on the location of a baby is a very poor definition.

Two more points of definition occur to me: when the baby is able to survive outside the mother's womb, and when brainwaves are first detected. The problem with the first (for prochoicers) is that this age is growing earlier and earlier with the further advancement of medical technology. I have little doubt that at some point in the not too distant future, that babies of any age will be able to be sustained outside of a mother's womb. And, of course, to decry this technological advancement and say the baby must survive on its own outside the woman is greatest silliness: not even a fully grown baby can do this, yet no one would support infanticide of a just born baby.

Finally, there is the point of brainwave detection. To me this makes most sense, and I think most modern pscyhologists (who identify the mind as nothing more than brainwaves) would have to agree. From this idea of brainwaves determining life and personhood has even come the term "brain-dead." It's interesting to see how on the opposite end of life, these same issues of personhood are raised. Of course, this too is unsatisfactory to the prochoicer, for brainwaves appear so early on in the development of a child that this would eliminate almost all abortions.

I'm not entirely sure how this will be received; I could very well be attacked from two sides. ;) But I would raise a challenge to anyone reading this, that if you disagree with me, engage me on the level of definition. Don't shout at me, because I won't listen. It's unproductive. Take apart my critiques of the various definitional points or offer your own idea of a definitional point. Stick in a comment if your response is brief, or email me if it is long. I'd be greatly interested to read what people have to say on such a sensitive topic.|||107800663162621076|||