As far as I am concerned, a human is not a seperate person from their mother until they are born. Until then, the baby is a part of the mother’s body*, and therefore they are the same legal entity, until such a time as the umbilical cord is severed thereby seperating them into two legal entities.

However:
“When is there a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment?”
This, to me, means ‘when fetus could actually survive outside of the womb without serious medical intervention’. IIRC, a baby born at 7-8 months can generally survive on its own; at 6 months, it will be a close scrape and they will have a number of serious problems but they can survive with serious medical intervention. Any further back than 6 months, it’s highly unlikely that they will survive at all, and it is likely that if they do survive birth, they will not live for very long. So, by that definition, a person is a person at 6 months pregnancy. But I don’t think it’ll hold up, to be honest, and I’d really rather keep the definition of a person as beginning at birth – keeps things from getting ridiculous.

(With that being said, there is something for giving certain rights to a fetus – exemption from malpractice waivers (well, they didn’t sign it, did they?) would possibly be one.
Anecdote warning: My brother was born at 8 months, and yet there was no medical reason for my mother to have had labour induced – she was perfectly healthy, and so was he. He was in a humidity-controlled crib for 5 weeks, and had to be given steroids to survive. He now has severe asthma and heart problems, and is missing one of the the cruciate ligaments in his knees, resulting in two partial and one full knee reconstruction before 40 – he will have a second full reconstruction in a few weeks, after damaging his (partially-reconstructed) knee *running after a bus*. I don’t joke when I say that is how easy it is for him to do catastrophic damage to the joints – not to mention the trouble my mother had teaching him to walk.
Apparently, he was covered by the malpractive waiver, so as a consequence he cannot sue the midwife for damage. I have heard similar stories from other women whose children were suffering because of stupid and unfounded decisions on a midwife’s or doctor’s part, who were angry that neither they nor their child could do anything about it. I’m sure that if doctors knew that the kid could later sue the daylights out of them, this sort of thing would never happen again – it doesn’t happen often, granted, but it shouldn’t be happening *at all* IMO.)

*: pedants: I know this is not medically true. Please don’t bite my head off.

And if a fertilized egg is a “person” and a woman miscarries (as up to 50% of fertilized eggs are believed to result in), can she be charged with manslaughter? Why or why not?

Regarding the nurse with the dramatic recount of seeing an abortion: as someone in nursing school the first thing we’re taught is to not judge to try to control others. That “nurse” had no business be working on a ward where her personal feelings clearly cloud her judgment and harm her effectiveness. At best she is insubordinate, but she borders on dangerous.

Regarding the right-to-lifer comments: what I’d like to know is who is going to take all these unwanted babies? Where are the clinic protesters? Cause they sure are NEVER at my state’s foster care or adoption offices (!!!)

Re: Kevin’s comment: “There’s life when there is a heart.”
By your definition someone who is brain dead must be forced to stay on a ventilator, even if that goes against wishes. By this definition, an elderly patients Do Not Resuscitate order would never be honored. Having a pulse is not sufficient to prove “personhood” and we as consenting adults risk losing our right to choosing our own care (or refusing care).

Then maybe life is, indeed, nothing…

I say, “There’s life when there is a heart.”

“The baby breathed. It was lying in a bedpan – it was a little boy and I saw him breathe. I said to the doctor: ‘I am going to get the crash team (emergency resuscitation medics).’

“And he got hold of my wrist, pulled me into a cubicle and said: ‘We are not on the labour ward. What are you doing?’

“He said that the only way I would be able to prove that the baby was alive was to drop him into a bucket of water and see if he floated! I ran out in tears.

“Later, the ward sister jabbed her finger at me and said: ‘You should seriously think about whether you should be a nurse.’

“What got me was the total lack of regard for human life. I have no issue with abortion at the right time. But this is murder.”

[...]

Recently, she watched an abortion at 19 weeks in a North London hospital.

“A baby aborted at 19 weeks is given a lethal injection into the heart. It is the most scary and unbelievably horrible thing to experience. This is Death Row.

“The needle goes into the heart and then the baby is left for 48 hours. The foetal monitor is checked until the heart stops.”

Check out Genesis 38:1-10 (click on my name).

Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment. Let’s take an even further step back. If you say that one cannot know exactly when it is a human, and that one risks murdering a human because of that, then there is also the risk of murdering a human every time a man ejaculates (either through direct stimulation or through dreams) or a woman has her period. Because we can’t say with certainty when something is human, then individual spermatozoa and ova are no less deserving of the moniker.

Why, then, place the burden on people having sex at will? Perhaps that is only because you place the development of “human” at some point after the union of the sperm and egg, which is just as arbitrary as what Nigel has pointed out.

I understand your message that people should be more responsible in how and when they have sex, but I also detect some moralistic undertones suggesting that sex should only be done for procreation, so as to avoid the “problem” of abortion. Sex has multiple roles: procreation, certainly, but also pleasure, enhancing the bond between two people, reassurance, the release of stress or anxiety. But all that is beside the point and off topic for Phil’s post.

The decision of where to draw the line between “human” and “not human” should not be based out of fear that it may be murder, lest we have people incapacitated by guilt every time they have a racy dream or get to “that time of the month”, let alone loving couples wracked with remorse every time they engage in loving acts that reinforce their relationship.

Don’t get me wrong. It is an important discussion to have, and we should work toward a reasonable consensus, a compromise, that can be accepted by, if not all, at least a great majority of the people who will be affected most by the decision. But any such decision should have some rational basis, rather than making emotional pleas.

Take a step back and see that due to this ambiguity, (in cases outside of rape/incest… very small percentage of abortions) we must lay the burden on the people having sex at will. They are admitting by your account that they cannot say that the possible conception is or isn’t human, and they admit that if the condom broke, they’d zap the fetus. could be murder I’m afraid.

So, before you even decide to reproduce (even for fun) you must consider the problem of when it is a human. If you can’t say and you feel that you’d abort it, you are admitting that you may be murdering what could be human.

Stop dealing with the problem of abortion. In cases of rape and incest, the answers are usually easy. It is problematic when we don’t think of these issues before and while having optional sex. There is always a chance to fertilize a woman when sex is involved and we all ought to be more responsible.

The first is a biological question: When does a new human life begin? When is there a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment? While ancient thinkers had little verifiable knowledge to help them answer this question, today embryology textbooks confirm that a new human life begins at conception (see http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact298.shtml). The Catholic Church does not teach this as a matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact.

In what sense do you mean “this says it all”, Patrick? Do you mean “these Catholics are crazy”, or do you mean “Quod Erat Demonstrandum“?

Either way, this quoted paragraph is pure fiction.

First of all, the bishops frame the question in such a way that they have an answer:

When is there a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment?

This is such a leading question, but even so it does not lead to a biologically unambiguous answer. The answer could be the time of conception, but it could equally well be the time of implanation in the womb lining, or the point at which the foetus’s lungs are sufficiently developed that the foetus could survive a premature birth. It all depends on how one defines the “nurturing environment”.

This statement:

today embryology textbooks confirm that a new human life begins at conception

is entirely dependent on how one defines a “human” life. If you mean a genetically unique entity with a human genome, then you can indeed say that conception is the moment this begins. But how many of us would actually recognise a fertilised ovum as a complete and independent human being? I don’t think anyone would (unless they have a hidden or alternative agenda in addition to answering this question).

To back up their argument, the bishops link to a page on their own website, which is a pretty feeble way of backing up such a bold statement. If they had linked to two dozen articles in developmental biology journals, then I mioght have paid a bit more attention. But they cannot, because there is no scientific evidecne that clearly and unambiguously indicates anything special or distinctive about the fertilised ovum.

A bit more biology here, BTW: Not only can the fertilised ovum divide to form identical twins (in the which case these two individuals only become unique some time after conception), but the ovum can be fertilised by two spermatozoa and give rise to one person who does not possess a unique genetic make-up (DNA tests using samples from different parts of their bodies can turn up clearly different results). These chimaeric individuals are one of the reasons that biological ID systems are unreliable. But this also means that you do not always get a genetically unique individual at all.

• persons may or may not be human beings

‘Person’ won’t be found in a medical dictionary. Persons don’t have DNA. A person is a cultural entity (an abstract concept) defined by tradition and by law.

A human being becomes a person when a culture bestows “membership” on someone formerly outside the group. Considering newborns in traditional cultures, not all who are born get chosen to be persons.

Infanticide or abandonment of infants often features in fairy tale and myth — Sophocles’ play, Oedipus Rex, does not lose its hold on us 2,500 years since its premier. But, for reasons well documented by Marvin Harris in “Cannibals and Kings” females run a greater risk of becoming non-persons.

And, of course, myth and religion bid us believe in non-human, even disembodied, persons: ghosts, goblins, godlings, gods, and God.

• embryo-as-person is a piece of paternalist ideology

The real issue is about control — male domination of women, including dismissing their rights over their own bodies. By trying to extend the concept of a person backward to cover fertilized human eggs and zygotes, male legislators hope to return control to the paternalistic “norm” promoted by so-called great monotheisms — judaism, xianity, and islam.

bipolar2 ©2008

USCCB News Release

08-129
September 9, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Bishops Respond To Senator Biden’s Statements Regarding Church Teaching On Abortion

WASHINGTON—Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman, U.S. Bishops Committee on Doctrine, issued the following statement:

Recently we had a duty to clarify the Catholic Church’s constant teaching against abortion, to correct misrepresentations of that teaching by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on “Meet the Press” (see http://www.usccb.org/prolife/whatsnew.shtml). On September 7, again on “Meet the Press,” Senator Joseph Biden made some statements about that teaching that also deserve a response.

Senator Biden did not claim that Catholic teaching allows or has ever allowed abortion. He said rightly that human life begins “at the moment of conception,” and that Catholics and others who recognize this should not be required by others to pay for abortions with their taxes.

However, the Senator’s claim that the beginning of human life is a “personal and private” matter of religious faith, one which cannot be “imposed” on others, does not reflect the truth of the matter. The Church recognizes that the obligation to protect unborn human life rests on the answer to two questions, neither of which is private or specifically religious.

The first is a biological question: When does a new human life begin? When is there a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment? While ancient thinkers had little verifiable knowledge to help them answer this question, today embryology textbooks confirm that a new human life begins at conception (see http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact298.shtml). The Catholic Church does not teach this as a matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact.

The second is a moral question, with legal and political consequences: Which living members of the human species should be seen as having fundamental human rights, such as a right not to be killed? The Catholic Church’s answer is: Everybody. No human being should be treated as lacking human rights, and we have no business dividing humanity into those who are valuable enough to warrant protection and those who are not. This is not solely a Catholic teaching, but a principle of natural law accessible to all people of good will. The framers of the Declaration of Independence pointed to the same basic truth by speaking of inalienable rights, bestowed on all members of the human race not by any human power, but by their Creator. Those who hold a narrower and more exclusionary view have the burden of explaining why we should divide humanity into those who have moral value and those who do not and why their particular choice of where to draw that line can be sustained in a pluralistic society. Such views pose a serious threat to the dignity and rights of other poor and vulnerable members of the human family who need and deserve our respect and protection.

While in past centuries biological knowledge was often inaccurate, modern science leaves no excuse for anyone to deny the humanity of the unborn child. Protection of innocent human life is not an imposition of personal religious conviction but a demand of justice.

For media inquiries, e-mail us at commdept@usccb.org
Department of Communications | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.

I do, with all due respect, largely disagree with your position.

I also feel that you have not made a strong enough argument to support your position. For instance, I do not understand why you consider the moment of conception to be so special – the argument you present for this does not convince me. Neither do I understand whether or not you feel a coroner should be called in to fill out a death certificate for a “human being” that has failed to implant in the womb lining. There are, after all, practical issues to be considered here as well as a philosophical point.

Still on the practical side, while I respect your right to follow the church of your choice, I do not see how any one church’s position on this issue could ever be codified into law without violating the Constitution. And it seems to me that your assumption of a consensus among Chrtistian churches is unjustified (IIUC, the Anglican church is happy to leave the decision to the medical profession).

There is one point you made with which I agree entirely:

Don Snow said:

I stick by my arbitrary definition.

My point all along has been that any definition of when an embryo should be considered human is arbitrary. The choice cannot be informed by our knowledge, because no-one can identify a distinct, unambiguous and evidentially-supported moment of transition from “a cell or cluster of cells with human DNA” to “a human being”.

In the knowledge that any distinction is arbitrary, we must take a pragmatic approach. What definition is the fairest compromise to both mother and child? What definition is easiest to apply in the real world? And so on.

Nigel Depledge Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Doon Snow said:

However, aside from the church, let me offer an old, old allegory. When I take a tomato seed, and plant it, I don’t expect watermelons, a rose bush nor the proverbial mustard tree. I expect a tomato plant.

ND: And what do you do on those frequent occasions when you get nothing? Do you accuse the soil of tomatricide (or whatever the correct term might be)?

Besides, there are many differences between a seed and the fertilised human ovum (aside from the genetic ones, of course) – a seed comprises many thousands or millions of cells (depending on the type of seed). The germination of a seed is very roughly equivalent to the birth of a mammal. It is certainly not equivalent to conception (of which the closest equivalent occurs when pollen fertilises a flower). So, your analogy actually argues for birth, not conception, as the moment “personhood” should be conferred.

When no plant grows, try again on different ground.
I couldn’t find the rest of my analogy in your reply, where I said, Likewise when a man plants his seed in a woman, he expects a human, not a pony nor a dog.
Nigel Depledge Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Don Snow said:

Since the topic is life or death, I defer to the church.

ND: Why? If you defer to a physicist on the topic of string theory, why not defer to a biologist when the topic is life?

After all, biology is the study of life. Biologists spend their careers studying life. Why would you choose to defer instead to a group of people who have devoted their lives to the study of one book (however good that book may be)?

DS: The biologist studies the effect; the church includes the Cause of that effect as well as the Holy Bible. The book’s about 3,500yo and the Cause is eternal: to spell out the belief system of the authority to which I defer, and which I share.

BTW, when I write church, I mean the consensus view of all Christendom, which encompasses any church preaching the teachings of Jesus Christ and the clergy and congregation [or most of each] doing those teachings).

ND: Erm … pardon me for paying insufficient attention, but what consensus?

And why only Christendom? Why should not muslims, Jews, hindus, sikhs, buddhists and so on not also have some say?

DS: I’m sure they do.

Now, the church to which I defer and in which I participate is the HRC. I accept the Catholic definition that life begins the moment of conception. It’s an individual life.

ND: I can accept that you choose to accept the Catholic church’s opinion on the matter, but you must see that it is no more than an opinion. Since there is no knowledge backing up that selection, it is no more valid than any other opinion. And if you follow the letter of the Bible, humans are considered less valuable until three months after birth, if the preceding comment was correct.

DS: Cutting to the chase, whether science, church, philosophy, history, math or the media, all we have, remains an educated opinion about the interpretation of any fact.
I gets my choice of with which interpretation and opinion, to agree.

And, you gets your choice.

I’d like to agree to disagree, and let you have the last say.
I appreciate the time and interest you have given to my position; and most of all, I appreciate your courtesy.

Nigel Depledge Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Don Snow said:

DS: Likewise, when a man plants his seed in a woman, it enters her egg, and they produce the very first joined tissue: those two cells have the DNA of each parent, joined into an individual.

ND: Erm, no. Not always. Identical twins arise when this “individual” splits in two.

So, when does the independent status of an identical twin arise? At the moment of conception? Or at the moment the fertilised ovum divides into two individuals? But if the latter, then why should twins be given special status? Why not define the moment the individual arises as the moment the fertilised ovum divides into two cells (whether to form twins or to form one individual).

DS: I have an identical twin brother, believe it or not.
I agree with your definition, the moment the fertilized cell divides into two cells, for identical twins.
I stand by the church definition, that one cell does not have to divide into two cells, before it’s an individual.

ND: My point here is that there is nothing special or unique about the “moment” of conception. And, as Phil pointed out in the blog entry, it takes time, and comprises several distinct stages.

DS: We disagree and I missed Phil’s earlier analysis. Ya’ll can divide hairs on exactly when you opine that conception occurs. It won’t change my belief system.

The living individual mentioned above, which appears the moment of conception.

ND: So, what do you think should happen when a fertilised ovum fails to implant (which is a common occurrence – for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s half the time)? According to your definition, a human being has just died. Should the coroner be called in? Should a murder investigation be instigated?

Well, no, of course not. But why do you then distinguish that “human being” from one that has been carried to term? Why is that person not to be treated with the same respect as one that has reached the point of birth?

I ask these questions to illustrate that any distinction we make is arbitrary.

DS: Well, when the fertilized ovum fails to implant or when there’s a miscarriage, yes, an individual has died. I stick by my arbitrary definition.

I don’t really distinguish the above, from an infant carried to term; nor from an adult, nor an elder in need of care. Each of these are a living individual. Back to momement of conception.

I’m not aware that I made any distinction.

That DNA encompasses much of the phsyiological and emotional characteristics of the person that will grow in the womb, endure live birth, and mature.

ND:
Well, I agree with you about the physiology, but I cannot agree with you about the emotional characteristics. It is very hard to determine if any particular emotional characteristic of an individual is the result of genetics or upbringing. If I understand correctly, many approaches to psychiatry adopt the approach that emotional characteristics arise mainly through upbringing and experience. Otherwise, why are toddlers so emotionally immature?

DS: I anticipated such a rejoinder. Although I agree that many personality traits are acquired after birth, on the other hand, I think at least three emotional responses have become autonomic: Sad, happy and escaping pain. I submit, that when you think about it, a baby is born with these emotions. It sure cries, when the doctor slaps its bottom and coos when fed. If you poke it, it will try to evade. Doesn’t have to be taught those, they’re part of a package deal, I think.

I would say, that makes a valid arguement, that the basic personhood of the person is present at conception.

ND: I disagree, as I hope I have demonstrated. And I also hope that I have demonstrated that the argument you propose has flaws that cannot be ignored or worked around.

DS: Well, I disagree that your demonstration subdued my arguement.
Mr. Depledge, why don’t we choose at this point, to agree to disagree?

If you like, you may reply to what I’ve written, so you can have the last word. But, I think we’ve chewed this bone of personhood at conception fairly thouroughly, by now.
I understand we’re you’re coming from, and I’m not going there. At least, I have an understanding of your position. I hope you’ve gained an understanding of my position, from my effort.

And many other people have come up with many other definitions of when human life begins, so where does that leave us? I personally don’t think there is a right answer, but there are definitely wrong answers. To me, the moment of conception falls into the wrong answer category.

Likewise, when a man plants his seed in a woman, it enters her egg, and they produce the very first joined tissue: those two cells have the DNA of each parent, joined into an individual.

Erm, no. Not always. Identical twins arise when this “individual” splits in two.

So, when does the independent status of an identical twin arise? At the moment of conception? Or at the moment the fertilised ovum divides into two individuals? But if the latter, then why should twins be given special status? Why not define the moment the individual arises as the moment the fertilised ovum divides into two cells (whether to form twins or to form one individual).

My point here is that there is nothing special or unique about the “moment” of conception. And, as Phil pointed out in the blog entry, it takes time, and comprises several distinct stages.

The living individual mentioned above, which appears the moment of conception.

So, what do you think should happen when a fertilised ovum fails to implant (which is a common occurrence – for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s half the time)? According to your definition, a human being has just died. Should the coroner be called in? Should a murder investigation be instigated?

Well, no, of course not. But why do you then distinguish that “human being” from one that has been carried to term? Why is that person not to be treated with the same respect as one that has reached the point of birth?

I ask these questions to illustrate that any distinction we make is arbitrary.

That DNA encompasses much of the phsyiological and emotional characteristics of the person that will grow in the womb, endure live birth, and mature.

Well, I agree with you about the physiology, but I cannot agree with you about the emotional characteristics. It is very hard to determine if any particular emotional characteristic of an individual is the result of genetics or upbringing. If I understand correctly, many approaches to psychiatry adopt the approach that emotional characteristics arise mainly through upbringing and experience. Otherwise, why are toddlers so emotionally immature?

I would say, that makes a valid arguement, that the basic personhood of the person is present at conception.

I disagree, as I hope I have demonstrated. And I also hope that I have demonstrated that the argument you propose has flaws that cannot be ignored or worked around.

Since the topic is life or death, I defer to the church.

Why? If you defer to a physicist on the topic of string theory, why not defer to a biologist when the topic is life?

After all, biology is the study of life. Biologists spend their careers studying life. Why would you choose to defer instead to a group of people who have devoted their lives to the study of one book (however good that book may be)?

BTW, when I write church, I mean the consensus view of all Christendom, which encompasses any church preaching the teachings of Jesus Christ and the clergy and congregation [or most of each] doing those teachings).

Erm … pardon me for paying insufficient attention, but what consensus?

And why only Christendom? Why should not muslims, Jews, hindus, sikhs, buddhists and so on not also have some say?

Now, the church to which I defer and in which I participate is the HRC. I accept the Catholic definition that life begins the moment of conception. It’s an individual life.

I can accept that you choose to accept the Catholic church’s opinion on the matter, but you must see that it is no more than an opinion. Since there is no knowledge backing up that selection, it is no more valid than any other opinion. And if you follow the letter of the Bible, humans are considered less valuable until three months after birth, if the preceding comment was correct.

However, aside from the church, let me offer an old, old allegory. When I take a tomato seed, and plant it, I don’t expect watermelons, a rose bush nor the proverbial mustard tree. I expect a tomato plant.

And what do you do on those frequent occasions when you get nothing? Do you accuse the soil of tomatricide (or whatever the correct term might be)?

Besides, there are many differences between a seed and the fertilised human ovum (aside from the genetic ones, of course) – a seed comprises many thousands or millions of cells (depending on the type of seed). The germination of a seed is very roughly equivalent to the birth of a mammal. It is certainly not equivalent to conception (of which the closest equivalent occurs when pollen fertilises a flower). So, your analogy actually argues for birth, not conception, as the moment “personhood” should be conferred.

First, thanks again for keeping this to a conversational tone, rather than a shouting match. I try to do the same.

Yeah, I did bring the Bible into it, having forgotten the earlier post pointing out the three month Levitical decision, from the OT. I had meant to look that up. But, I haven’t. Well, go with the disparity.

Remember, I wrote that although I love to think for myself, at times I defer to an authority acceptable to me. (I would defer to a physicist if the topic were string theory. Since the topic is life or death, I defer to the church. BTW, when I write church, I mean the consensus view of all Christendom, which encompasses any church preaching the teachings of Jesus Christ and the clergy and congregation [or most of each] doing those teachings). Now, the church to which I defer and in which I participate is the HRC. I accept the Catholic definition that life begins the moment of conception. It’s an individual life. I have not the education to argue personhood, on deep theological or deep philosophical levels.

However, aside from the church, let me offer an old, old allegory. When I take a tomato seed, and plant it, I don’t expect watermelons, a rose bush nor the proverbial mustard tree. I expect a tomato plant.
Likewise, when a man plants his seed in a woman, it enters her egg, and they produce the very first joined tissue: those two cells have the DNA of each parent, joined into an individual. The living individual mentioned above, which appears the moment of conception. That DNA encompasses much of the phsyiological and emotional characteristics of the person that will grow in the womb, endure live birth, and mature. I would say, that makes a valid arguement, that the basic personhood of the person is present at conception.

I will in advance agree, that I arbitraially expect a human, not a pony nor dog, to ensue from the seed planted by the man into the woman. Just like I would like to arbitraially limit the discussion to natural rather than clinical procreation.

Anyway, that’s how I think and how I choose. I do not exclude medical, legal, philosophical nor other peoples’ opinions on this. I merely submit the framework, within which I work and live. I do not try to impose this framework on anyone, except myself. Other individuals have their own belief systems. From all this variety, we gain our American way of life.

We need a definition, and if you can’t figure one out, one’s been figured out for you. If you’ve got a better idea, suggest it, but not supporting one that’s been done because it doesn’t support abortion isn’t about the life at all. You’re politicizing it.

BTW, I enjoyed that book and would recommend it. There were many nit-picky things I disagreed with in the first half of the book comparing human intelligence with animal intelligence, but I still agreed overall. I very much disagreed with much of the second half of the book comparing human intelligence with future artificial intelligence, but the book was still very interesting throughout.