The issue that I find most interesting (although this might be a hot topic) is life and living. What is alive? When is it considered alive? My subject position is as a scientist. I will discuss this issue from that side of the spectrum. Dictionary.com defines life as the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. Living is then defined as having life. I added these definitions because they show that there is not a clear-cut line of what is life is and what is really living.
The mccl (Minnesota citizens concerned for life) website states “An unborn baby's life begins long before he or she is born.” The mccl website then provides a facts slideshow to justify this claim. You can reach this here if your interested http://www.mccl.org/page.aspx?pid=381 . These scientific facts include among them that at 19 weeks a baby can survive on its own, at 18 weeks it is perfectly formed, at 14 weeks the heart pumps, at 11 weeks all organs systems are functioning and the baby will seize an object placed in its hand, at 7 weeks the baby is kicking, and at 6 weeks brain waves are present. It also includes also information about fingerprints, nails, etc. Mccl believes that life begins at fertilization. Mccl believes that at fertilization the children’s characteristics such as sex, eye color, and intelligence are all determined. As I looked through the slides about when life begins I realized that although these slides all say “Fact” on the top both the facts they are choosing as well as the images are meant to do work on you and pull at your heartstrings. For example the statement that “the baby will seize an object placed in its hand” is not there to inform you that a baby can do this task; it is put there to make you think about a baby grasping on to your finger. Also the slides will show an image of a cell and a baby on the same slide letting you fill in the gaps of the cell actually becoming a baby. This forces you into directly comparing a fertilized egg to the children you see around you. Throughout the slides on the mccl site they randomly add in slides about the horrific nature of abortion (although the point of the slideshow is to discuss when life starts), adding those in make sure that you not only realize that your baby has fingerprints but also that abortion is nasty and brutal. It is evident that it is not just about when life starts but also social construction around life that is causing mccl to make there argument.
Scientifically, the claims made on the mccl are either truthful or ‘partly’ truthful. Although it is possible that a baby can survive on its own at 19 weeks, this is a rare occurrence. Premature babies face many complications and many will be on intensive care at hospitals before they will be able to go home. Risks of prematurity include severe or moderate disabilities such as cerebral palsy, vision or hearing loss, learning problems, cardiovascular problems, respiratory problems, infection, etc. (the list goes on and on). So although it may be possible for a baby to live on its own it is neither ideal or common. Also although in the womb the baby can do all of the things that are listed on the site such as seize an object, have brain activity, have a heart beat, and functioning organs the child cannot live without the womb of the mother so none of this would be possible without the mothers presence and cooperation. A baby is not the same thing as a fertilized egg regardless of the fact that the DNA is present the environment of the child plays a crucial role in not only the child’s development but also the characteristics it will have such as height, eye color, intelligence etc, it is not just the DNA that determines these things (as has been identified on the mccl website). All of this being said, it is clear that not only what they say on the mccl website but also how they say it and what they choose to leave out or include (like we have discussed with reporting, photographs, and truth) makes a world of difference. Even though it may appear to be presented as just facts to someone who is unaware of the culture surrounding it, this is not the case.
I think it is difficult to base the abortion debate on whether or not something is alive, living, or has life. Realistically a child cannot survive independently even after it is born but that doesn’t make it not alive, that being said can an embryo that can’t survive on its own really be compared to a baby that needs to be cared for… not really in my opinion. The basis for whether something is a functioning, surviving, individual will never be clear cut even if science is involved to give information on what is true about a child inside the womb. There can always be alternative arguments being made on what alive truly is or what alive truly means. However I think to make the broad claim mccl makes that “the only real difference between the fertilized ovum and the baby is appearance, time, and a short trip through the birth canal and that unborn children are all viable if you leave them alone” is really difficult to accept. Scientifically going from an embryo to a baby is not only that, there is so much more to it. At the end of the day this debate is similar to the debate on whether someone brain dead should be taken off of assistance- should you be able to take a baby off of the assistance of the womb provided by the mother and who should be able to decide this. This will never be settled by either science or religion and in my opinion the debate is really more about feelings than it is about concern over something being “living” or “alive”.
No comments:
Post a Comment