This was written by a late friend. I have given him credit at the end.
As far as observable science is concerned, human life begins at conception.”
For the moment, let’s ignore the above and just agree on the following:
1. Something is created at conception when a sperm unites with an egg. The Something never existed before the conception.
2. The Something undergoes a continuous development process after conception. The development is slow & methodical. Unless you’re actually counting molecules in the Something, it is virtually impossible to detect the incremental changes from day to day. The physical development continues for roughly 20 years. The mental development continues longer.
3. There is, at the 9 month point, a transition wherein the development environment changes from inside-the-womb to outside-the-womb. Some new bodily functions start, like breathing air. The physiology of the Something is not changed by the birth, it just gets oxygen & food by different processes.
Suppose now we ask, “When, in this continuous development process, does this Something become a human life and become entitled to the unalienable Right to Life?” Suppose we demand that this question be answered by science using whatever diagnostic tools that are available to the scientists, which tools are, of course, continually undergoing development & improvement themselves. Suppose the scientists come up with an answer that life begins X days after conception. Now, the skeptic asks, “How about X+1 days? After all, your instruments cannot see any change from day X to day X+1 so you have no real basis for choosing X. Furthermore, I do not accept your decision making criterion because it is arbitrary and without rationale.” So, the scientists acquiesce and agree that X+1 is acceptable. Another skeptic comes along and lobbies for X+2 days using similar arguments. With enough skeptics we are soon at the 20 year point.
So, you see there really is no scientific answer other than to say that the Something was a human life at the moment of conception. [As a scientist, I personally have no reservations about this conclusion.] Hence, scientifically speaking, an abortion is the taking of an (innocent) human life. The deliberate and premeditated taking of a human life, other than as a punishment by government for a capital crime, is MURDER, plain & simple. You can talk yourself into believing whatever you want, as do the mothers who voluntarily seek & obtain 1.2 million abortions per year in America. But, as for me, I’ll take X=0. Science & logic cannot justify any other conclusion.
Of course, if one believes that there is no unalienable Right to Life, or that “government” has the authority to determine who deserves such a right and when they deserve it (aside from capital punishment), then all bets are off, and we’ve entered a brave new world.
Dale Arthur Holmes. Pahrump, Nevada
