An Exchange of Views - Conclusion

SLB is quite correct when she suggests that I, too, go beyond the topic, but I am forced to think of all the consequences of a total acceptance of human life beginning at the moment of fertilization of an ovum. Blanket assumptions and conclusions can lead to unexpected and problematic issues.

First, if a fetus has all of the rights of a person who has been born, then anyone who causes that fetus harm or endangers the potential person should be criminally liable for child endangerment, manslaughter or homicide. So if a pregnant woman willfully refuses to take pre-natal vitamins or drinks alcohol or takes harmful drugs or even smokes, shall she be prosecuted? All of these activities can cause harm.

Second, if the earliest possible start of personhood is chosen, are some methods of birth control the equivalent of abortion and are they to be condemned? An excellent article on some of the ramifications involved is at http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_emer2.htm.

The bottom line, as far as I am concerned is that

• Abortions ought not to be treated casually, not as a routine or accepted method of birth control.
• There is a qualitative difference between a potential person in the form of a cluster of cells and an unborn child with viability.
• The ultimate decision of control of a woman's body is made by the woman. Not by the government, not by someone else's church.

And in one of my favorite expressions from the old days, "Further affiant sayeth naught."

And one final thought from SLB

I didn't know we were going to keep going without Damo, Jim. One salient point, though... there are plenty of cases on record where pregnant women got in trouble with the law for drinking and drug abuse. Funny how the state can force them not to "harm" their babies, but killing them is acceptable...