Many proponents of abortion argue that human life does not begin until implantation.
Since I moved to Dallas, I have had occasion to listen to a much greater variety of radio on my morning drive to work. Among the host of new commentators available, one Mark Davis is clearly prominent. Though virtually unknown north of the Mason-Dixon line, Mr. Davis is a libertarian commentator who is rather popular in North Texas. His name enters the discussion because one of his positions is as common as it is absurd – the idea that human life does not begin until implantation.
According to Mr. Davis, the “implantation of the fertilized egg” [sic] is the beginning of human life, but not of the human person. Rather, implantation is when the “building blocks” first become available. A human person emerges only weeks later in the process. As a result, Mr. Davis is four-score in support of abortion “during a very narrow window” of pregnancy.
Mr. Davis’ position fails on a number of levels, and it is worthwhile to consider how complete a failure it is.
From a biological viewpoint, Mark Davis is simply out of step with the science.
First, as I’ve pointed out in detail elsewhere, it is never the case that a fertilized egg implants in the womb. Only embryos are capable of implanting in the womb.
Second, the redefinition of pregnancy occurred only after science discovered how to manipulate embryos in Petri dishes. Prior to developing that skill in the mid-1980's, science had always considered pregnancy to begin at conception. The definition of pregnancy changed not because the reality within a woman changed, but because the skill set of a scientist who happened to be standing near the woman changed.
Third, embryologists – the men and women who actually study embryos – universally reject the implantation definition. The only people who accept such an absurdity are people interested in taking a newly conceived, rapidly growing little one and tearing her to pieces.
But the biological arguments are boring. Let’s consider the other problems the implantation definition creates.
From a moral perspective, the statement that pregnancy begins at implantation and that personhood follows afterwards creates all kinds of moral problems.
For instance, if pregnancy begins at implantation, then it is not clear why the act of sex would create responsibility in any man having sex.
After all, while the woman has no control over whether or not she releases an egg, she does normally control who may release sperm within her. The man likewise controls in whom he releases his sperm.
So, if pregnancy begins at conception, then the act of sperm release creates responsibility. Since both persons are equally involved in when and where this release occurs, both bear equal responsibility in what happens as a result of that release. In this scenario, sex creates equal responsibilities towards the child in both partners.
But, if pregnancy begins at implantation, the scenario is different. The man cannot control when implantation occurs. The woman, however, through the use of various drugs and chemicals, can control when and whether implantation occurs. Thus, responsibility for the resulting pregnancy is no longer equal; rather, it resides entirely with the woman. Given this scenario, it is not clear that sex creates responsibility in the man at all.
If sex does not necessarily create duties in the man towards a future child, then redefining the biological reality necessarily obliterates fatherhood. Fathers conceive children. They bear responsibility towards children. According to the new definition, men do neither.
With the new definition, men can never be considered fathers. This definition insists that children are created by gestation, not by the act of having sex. Men do not gestate. In fact, they never do more than have sex. Thus, by this definition, men do not create children. Men are not fathers.
Indeed, one could make a strong argument that an IVF lab technician is much more of a biological parent than a man having sex can ever be. After all, the conception event can take place hours, even days after having sperm release. But if pregnancy is predicated not on sperm release, but on implantation, then the dynamic has changed.
An IVF lab technician is actually directly involved in the conception of the child – he or she actually combines the egg and sperm. That technician makes sure the fertilized egg grows into an embryo suitable for implantation. That technician might even place the embryo in the womb, ensuring implantation. The one who conceives a child and/or helps it grow is called a parent. It is difficult to see why the IVF technician is not a parent.
But the biology has been redefined. Today, sex doesn’t create children. Gestation does. Redefining the biology necessarily redefines the morality. Because the new definition focuses on implantation, not sperm release, the act of sex – the act which is intended to release sperm – becomes a peripheral act, both physically and morally.
Mark Davis doesn’t understand this. Unfortunately, he has a lot of company.
I think that there can be different abortion policies for different groups of people. If you believe in pre-liberalism Christianity, then different groups of people have different customs.
I agree with T.S. Eliot: I support abortion for blacks and Mexicans, but I think it should be a crime for white people. Call me racist, but I think that white soul is worth more.
John, if you really think like that, then yeah – I will call you a racist.
No individual or group of individuals is any more “valuable” than any other; there is no soul that is “worth more” than any other. The only instance where I might be inclined to say this isn’t true is in the case of Jesus Christ, when He was in human form to teach us, and to die for our sins. And you should consider something very important regarding Him: He wasn’t even white.
People like you truly do give conservatives a bad name, and it is attitudes like yours that make it so hard for others to take us seriously. In fact, I am now “conservative” only in terms of individual outlook – I can no longer associate myself with conservative politics, ie, Republicans, anymore, and now lean toward libertarian.
John, you definitely are a raging bigot. Some questions for you…..how much is a soul worth? WHO is it worth more to? How much do you think I could actually get for my black friend’s soul? Would it be worth the trouble? If I tan easily, is my soul worth less than if I just stay pasty white? What about a Native American? Is a polish soul worth less or more than an Irish soul? If/when someone makes it to heaven is there some kind of exchange rate for souls? Who sets the rate, God or St. Peter?
I know I can answer one question for sure….your soul, John, is definitely worthless.
John as a Conservative-Bush-voting-Christian….. I have to say that your stand on abortion is an abomination. You clearly do not respect life. You clearly do not adhere to conservative values. Your post is more insideous than posts by Ahmdo and Lyon Brave, because you pretend to be conservative.
My assertion – that white souls should be more cherished by whites – is a common conservative belief by educated conservatives, such as T.S. Eliot.
I can see from the comments above that most of you are “liberals in disguise.” You have bought into political correctness.
When it comes to abortion, leftists seem to have no problem with the clearly racist results abortion as it is currently practiced. Black babies are aborted at twice the per capita rate of white babies. Most abortion clinics are located in poor inner city neighborhoods so as to be close to their target market.
Is it any coincidence that Margaret Sanger, the founder of what is now Planned Parenthood, was an advocate of eugenics? She was strongly in favor of using abortion to eliminate “inferior” races like African Americans. Even today she is hailed by leftists and radical feminists.
Nice angle mountain man. Some folks ponder the implications of an in utero test for the gay gene(s). Do you suppose there would be some switching of sides – both ways? Honestly, who among you would accept a fairy son? What about the taken-for-granted gay and lesbian pillars of the Left? They might have something to say about it, as well.
~Please don’t feed the trolls.
John, It is liberals who promote condescending policies such as racial hiring quotas showing less concern about issues of character and opportunity.
Abortion is all about assigning value to the individual focused on self-interest and demeaning other's worth based on size, gender, genetic make up, location, convenience. Whether the arguments are about life beginning at implantation, broken down into trimesters, or are determined by other nebulous value assignments based on timelines (quickening, viability, the babies head being fully out of the birth canal, or Peter's Singers notion of infantacide for up to 30 days or more post birth), it is all about what achieves the desired outcome. If none of these works, you can jump further into intellectual fantasyland and start talking about personhood.
John, your comments are offensive at so many levels and my best advise is that you get some counselling, but don't pretend that you are spouting anything even faintly conservative. I wouldn't bother responding to such tripe, except this feeds the kind of attitudes that Christians and conservatives are regularly having to defend and I am sick of it.
John, I have to disagree with you. I think abortion for liberals and socialists and communists should be government sponsored, even encouraged. How about following the Chi-coms lead and forcing those folk to have a maximum of one child (if they must)? No, the soul of a child, even a liberal’s child, is not worth less, but they certainly are worth less when they are brain-washed by their liberal parents, and grow up to be anti-American scum sucking liberals. (Only partially written with tongue in cheek ;)
I agree with John above. The rest of you sound like a bunch of liberal cry babies.
Whites should take care of their own. Blacks take care of their own. Mexicans take care of their own. Whites should think that white souls are better. Blacks should think that black souls are better, etc. There is nothing wrong with this.
It is natural for each race to argue for the superiority of its’ racial soul.
John, good work.
The rest of you liberal cry babies, get a clue.
Yea, Russell Kirk argued that it is natural for the white race to want to stick together and promote its own interests. Not a damn thing is wrong with this, either. (Unless you’re a liberal.) Real conservatives should recognize that different races will argue for the superiority of their souls.
Neither the article nor anybody above got the right answer as to when a human life begins. It begins when the mother decides she wants to keep “it”. I’m not talking science here, but politics. Consider two situations: A woman who gives birth and another who aborts. The only difference, as far as the embryos/fetuses/“its” are concerned, one is wanted in the former case and unwanted in the latter. Since the latter is unwanted, it cannot be a human person whose life has begun, for to take such a person’s life would be murder.
The inescapable conclusion is that “it” is property until it is wanted.
G of Sedona,
Let me put to you two situations. In one, a woman learns she’s pregnant and wants to have the baby. She talks to her boyfriend who also recognises their shared commitment to one another and the baby and they marry and raise the child together.
In the next scenario, the woman wants to keep the child and the boyfriend says he’ll kick her out and leave her with no financial help if she doesn’t abort. She exercises her “choice” and aborts, later struggling with depression because she knows she killed her child.
This scenario is acted out time and again and women bear the brunt. I’m assuming you are an ardent feminist woman judging from your comments. I want you to consider that what you have said about the baby being property neatly parallels with attitudes from the time of slavery and before women’s sufferage. That was all based on legality, not science. Abortion is never a solution because the baby is never the problem. The problem is a failure of individuals who engage in casual sex to face up to their commensurate responsibilities. It is all about self-interest and doing things for selfish reasons (up to and including killing their own innocent unborn – that is science), will never bring happiness and demeans us as individuals and as a culture.
John, Nathan and Peter,
If any of you are white, you are all the proof I need that character is far more important than colour. I have far more in common with the Martin Luther King Jr.s and the Thomas Sowell’s of this world than I do with you. I still see you as having worth, but I sure hope you get your heads on straight.
Tom:
I am not an ardent feminist woman; I am an ardent anti-abortion man.
You wrote: “It is all about self-interest and doing things for selfish reasons…”
And I think that adequately describes the “want” that is the deciding factor of what determines (politically) whether the unborn is a human being.
You are correct that my comments parallel slavery; they were intended to point out that the mother’s “choice” to abort is nothing more than the exercise of those property rights. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say offspring remain the property of the mother for a considerable time even after they are born. (This time probably extends to the age at which children can choose for themselves which parent they wish to live with in a divorce situation. Also, consider the reluctance of juries to give the death penalty to mothers who murder their children [e.g., Suzan Smith]).
You are also correct when you say “that was all based on legality, not science”, and that’s exactly what I meant by saying human life begins (for all legal practical purposes) when the mother decides she wants to keep “it”, which is the situation we have had since the legalization of abortion.
One final note. If a mother decides to keep “it”, her unborn is protected by law; but she may change her mind at any time during pregnancy, and as a result, “it” ceases to be a human being, is no longer protected by law, and reverts to being her property once more, since “it” can be legally aborted.
A fine legal mess, no?
John it appears, has already sold his soul. What does the T.S stand for, take s–t? Excuse my implied language but invoking a famous person to add weight to racist statements doesn’t impress us. God designed the peoples of the earth if he showed any favoritism it was to the chinese and people of India because there are more of them. People should not destroy the handiwork no matter when after conception. I believe children are a gift from God therefore I keep mine.
G of Sedona
As you are not only a pro-abortion, but pro-slavery male, I presume that you would have been a-okay when the law treated women as property. If not, where do you draw the line as you are willing to accept the unborn and children as property merely because the law said so?
By your estimation, child and spousal abuse is humane because you deign to allow your property to live. Child labour – equally okay as long as the parents get their rightful cut from the sale.
I hope you enjoy your training under the brilliant ethicist Peter Singer. I would like to point out that this website is called “Intellectual Conservative,” and you clearly fit neither of these categories.
All the best to your friends on Planet Sedona.
It’s sad that people still exist that are either too ignorant to understand what they espouse. The only race that is of consequence in this world is the human race. The only reason that abortion continues to be acceptable is because it is easier than life to those that promote its use. As a society, we’ve said that killing children is easier than responsibility. Never mind the millions of women and men permanently scarred by this abomination. Never mind the millions of lives destroyed for the god of instant gratification. Never mind the economic industry crafted to promote wholesale murder of children in order to satisfy a political hunger. Never mind the millions of fathers brain-washed that they can abdicate their responsibilities for $179.
Pro-abortionists promote a world where all responsibilities are washed away, only leaving shells of what we could become as a people.