G
gregoryphealy
Guest
I recently got into an interesting discussion with a non-Catholic, but Christian, friend. For reference, I believe the unique life of a new human being both biologically and spiritually begins at conception. She posited that life begins where we (or technology) are capable of supporting it (she used 20 weeks as her approximation). Now, this was different from the usual emotive arguments for abortion that usually arise in the form of women’s rights, brain activity, heartbeat, etc. But rather, it acknowledged that human life should not be forcefully ended, and it skipped right to the core of the abortion argument: where does human life begin?
Her position relies on an extrinsic definition of life not tethered to biology alone but to biology and self-sustaining existence. That is to say, while a born baby (heck, even a teenager) is dependent on the mother/father to provide, a human at that stage can be passed on to another caregiver. An unborn child in the womb cannot. This argument, to me, seems rather arbitrary. I should have stated at this point that the child is, in fact, self-sustaining, and you have to actively intervene to interrupt its ability to sustain itself. But I let her argument pass, offering up the hypothetical technological advances that may occur in the future. If we develop a means by which to preserve a child from conception, then what? To her credit, she was consistent, stating that life then begins at conception. But this, to me, just seems so irrational. How close in proximity do you have to be to these technologies to be considered under its jurisdiction? If I stand on the border of the US and Mexico while the US has this technology and Mexico doesn’t, can I make the “life” of this baby in the womb enter and leave? What if the technology for test tube babies from conception exists now, but it just hasn’t been mainstreamed?
Now, while I respect my friend, I believe this to be a bit of an exercise in mental gymnastics because it constantly shifts the goalposts for defining human life (as technology develops) and applies a nebulous definition of our technological capabilities as the goal line. I should have asked, “What if a baby can be supported 2 days earlier than 20 weeks? Did we just commit murder, by this definition, if aborted at 20 weeks?” We just don’t have the technological sophistication to make such critical decisions with absolute certainty. Furthermore, the arbitrary nature of time, place, proximity, and technological development just rubs me the wrong way, and it seems like a means to escape moral responsibility and to compromise between the two poles (though I doubt the latter informed her position).
Ultimately, her position denies the intrinsic value of life regardless of capacities and developmental stage in favor of an extrinsic definition on the basis of supportable life. I would say it approaches a materialist, physicalist kind of view on life. I was wondering what others on this forum might have to say about the value of intrinsic life, and why that should supersede any extrinsic definitions. I just wanted to know if I was missing anything or if there might be any good reads out there on the matter.
Her position relies on an extrinsic definition of life not tethered to biology alone but to biology and self-sustaining existence. That is to say, while a born baby (heck, even a teenager) is dependent on the mother/father to provide, a human at that stage can be passed on to another caregiver. An unborn child in the womb cannot. This argument, to me, seems rather arbitrary. I should have stated at this point that the child is, in fact, self-sustaining, and you have to actively intervene to interrupt its ability to sustain itself. But I let her argument pass, offering up the hypothetical technological advances that may occur in the future. If we develop a means by which to preserve a child from conception, then what? To her credit, she was consistent, stating that life then begins at conception. But this, to me, just seems so irrational. How close in proximity do you have to be to these technologies to be considered under its jurisdiction? If I stand on the border of the US and Mexico while the US has this technology and Mexico doesn’t, can I make the “life” of this baby in the womb enter and leave? What if the technology for test tube babies from conception exists now, but it just hasn’t been mainstreamed?
Now, while I respect my friend, I believe this to be a bit of an exercise in mental gymnastics because it constantly shifts the goalposts for defining human life (as technology develops) and applies a nebulous definition of our technological capabilities as the goal line. I should have asked, “What if a baby can be supported 2 days earlier than 20 weeks? Did we just commit murder, by this definition, if aborted at 20 weeks?” We just don’t have the technological sophistication to make such critical decisions with absolute certainty. Furthermore, the arbitrary nature of time, place, proximity, and technological development just rubs me the wrong way, and it seems like a means to escape moral responsibility and to compromise between the two poles (though I doubt the latter informed her position).
Ultimately, her position denies the intrinsic value of life regardless of capacities and developmental stage in favor of an extrinsic definition on the basis of supportable life. I would say it approaches a materialist, physicalist kind of view on life. I was wondering what others on this forum might have to say about the value of intrinsic life, and why that should supersede any extrinsic definitions. I just wanted to know if I was missing anything or if there might be any good reads out there on the matter.