A reader clarifies something:
Ramesh should know a zygote is a fertiziled egg (an embryo is a fertilized egg that has divided some arbitrary number of times). Sometimes the womb is to blame, but there are lots of zygotes that are defective so they never get far into the embryo stage (let alone the fetus implanted in the uterus stage). It is not the womb or mother’s internal architecture that is defective–its the fertilized egg itself that has some sort of chromosome damage or other abormality that prevents it from going forward (could even be the father had some bad seed). When my wife and I first started trying to have children it did not happen instantly after we stopped using birth control–she felt “something” for the first couple of months of attempts that didn’t pan out into a positive pregnancy result. It may have been in her head, but then again it may have been a zygote that didn’t make it.
The reason I single out zygotes is simply because that’s what the theocons have done. Robert George insists that human life begins at the moment a new splicing of 46 chromosomes occurs at the moment of fertilization. The reason these zygotes don’t make it may be chance, environment, competition or their own genetic errors. I think the latter is what Ramesh is referring to. Some zygotes die because they’re objectively disordered, if you’ll pardon the expression. But they’re still complete human beings, according to the Pope. Just like the disabled, dying, and even gays. And they die by the millions in America ever year. According to the Pope, their deaths are no less morally significant than those of the miners who recently perished in the Sago mine. As another reader points out, the political implications of this are mindboggling:
You are on the right track with the zygote discussion. The question for lawmakers about abortion is not whether it’s a good or bad thing: it’s always bad. The question is whether it’s a bad thing government should regulate and if so, how? The reason the zygote question is important is because it’s very difficult for government to ban ordinary physical processes, and miscarriage (known in medical books as “spontaneous abortion,” by the way) is a completely natural process. We do well to remember that banning something doesn’t stop people from doing it, it just allows the government to punish those who do. In this case, if it’s not possible to determine easily whether something was natural or induced, how can the state legitimately apply punishments?
If zygotes or blastulae or embryoes become 14th Amendment persons, entitled to all the protections thereof, how do we go about ensuring their protection against say, negligent acts by the mother? Could we start refusing to sell alcohol to breeding-age women? Refuse to let them ski, ride horseback, or cycle? All those activities can cause miscarriages, and 14th Amendment persons have the right to be protected from other 14th Amendment persons’ harm, intentional or otherwise. If one objected to the Taliban, one cannot coutenance the kinds of restrictions necessary to protect zygotes from their mothers, who are quite often unaware of their existence.
This helps explain the disconnect between the rhetoric and logic of the pro-life movement and what they actually do about it.
– posted by Andrew.
The Dish 