Thursday, Mayor Pete Buttigieg said that determining when human life begins is "unknowable" therefore, abortion cannot be regulated well. The word for word quote is:
“For those who have a strong view about some of these almost unknowable questions around life, the best answer I can give, is that because we will never be able to settle those questions, in a consensus fashion,”
Interesting. While Buttigieg is dodging the issue, for political expediency, many people on both the right and left have very strong feelings both ways.
Some people on the hard right feel that as soon as a sperm and an egg get together, that is a person. I personally, as a medical professional and scientist, disagree. It is a plan for a person. I don't think a fertilized egg is a person any more than a blueprint is a building. Granted, it is a unique blueprint, but it is still a blueprint. The fertilized egg's only function is to eventually become a human being.
Some on the hard left say that a fully formed, completely healthy baby, minutes from being born, is not a human being, and can be killed just because the pregnancy is unwanted. It is hard to debate those people because they have apparently no knowledge of human physiology and are basically insane.
This brings us to the crux of the issue. If you do disagree with the idea that a fertilized egg is a person, and you agree that a healthy fetus minutes from birth is a person, then you have to come up with some determination of when "becoming a human being" occurs. That is the tough part.
Here is one attempt at a reasonable approach.
After years and years of struggling with this, as a physician, I have come to my own conclusion. You don't have to agree or disagree. Everyone is entitled to their own view. I just want my to have some rational basis for my own opinion.
Some analogous situations, to illustrate the points:
1. At one end of the spectrum: At Ford or General Motors, when they begin to build a vehicle, they start with a frame. They then add other parts until it becomes a vehicle. Is a frame (by itself) a car or truck? Is the assembly program in the factory computer a vehicle? Obviously not. To say yes would be the same as saying that a windshield wiper, or a tail light assembly, is a car. A car is only a car when it has all of the attributes of a car and/or has the potential to function as a car. It is a little more vague when when looking at something that used to be a car (a rusty hunk of metal that once was a car) but something which has never had the ability to function as a car probably is not a car. Again, this does not refer to a broken down car or a scrapped car. I am talking about a group of parts that has never been a functional car. That is not a car.
2. At the other end: If a car has been completely assembled, is completely functional, has never left the factory, and is sitting in the factory at the end of the assembly line, awaiting someone to drive it out of the factory onto the parking lot for shipment, how can anyone in their right mind argue that it is NOT a car? Does the location of a car determine whether it is, or is not, a car? That is why those people are insane and should just be ignored.
That leads back to the analogous question, at what point on the assembly line, does the car become a car?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but my feeling is that when the assembled vehicle can function as a car, it is a car. It may not have GPS or A/C yet but if it has an engine and can be driven, it is a car.
In the human example, to me, as soon as a fetus can function as a human being outside of the uterus, it is a person. If a fetus can fall out of the uterus and live a normal life, it is clearly a person.
There are varying scientific opinions of exactly when in pregnancy that is (likely somewhere in the 20-24 weeks gestational age area) but there is no question that, after that time, the fetus can function outside the uterus unless there is some genetic abnormality or gestational problem.
One thing that always gets lost in the debates is that abortion is a medical procedure. The question is not whether you are for or against it. The question is when it is an appropriate procedure to be performed on any given pregnant woman. Outside of nut cases, no one wants to kill viable fully formed babies and no one wants women to carry fetuses that will not survive to full term. Therefore, the debate should center around when the medical procedure is appropriately used, not if you are for or against it.
Here is a reasonable approach:
- allow termination of pregnancies of non-viable fetuses at any stage (the baby is never going to live). No woman should have to carry a fetus that will never live (anencephaly, Tay-Sachs, certain trisomies, etc.) to term. It is cruel and unreasonable to ask a pregnant woman to do that and dangerous to her health.
- allow termination of early stage pregnancies as a result of rape or incest (because of the psychological damage to the woman)
- allow termination of pregnancy at any stage if the pregnancy itself is a risk to the life of the mother. A woman should not be expected to have to die, rather than terminate a pregnancy
- do not allow termination of healthy, viable fetuses once they reach the age that they can survive outside of the uterus because that is a distinct human being. If the pregnancy is unwanted, give the child up for adoption.
Given a reasonable. approach, the real remaining debate is in the case of a healthy early stage fetus, not yet able to survive outside the uterus, as an elective procedure simply because the pregnant woman wants to terminate the pregnancy. This is the part that will fuel the most disagreement. If you think that the fetus is not yet a person, that seems to be the woman's choice. Once the fetus reaches viability outside the uterus, it is no longer a choice because the fetus is a person that can survive outside of the uterus and that is killing a human being.
People will, of course, disagree, but this seems like a reasonable position.
