WHAT DO BABIES AND BEEF BROTH HAVE IN COMMON?

I will never forget the first time I heard the word abortion. It was in the fall of 1974, part of the sex-ed curriculum in my 7th grade health class. Mrs. Stevens explained that this was a backstop to failed contraception, if you weren’t prepared for the burden of raising a child.

And then she went on to describe the mechanics of the process in greater detail than I cared to know. Just the thought of such a thing made me sick. Literally, physically, viscerally. I didn’t quite vomit on my desk, but it came close. At the age of twelve, I had no political leanings. It wasn’t about my religion or my ethics (yet). Just a grotesque visual in my mind’s eye.

I wasn’t much of a deep thinker at the time, but…was this an act of murder? Or just a routine medical procedure? Surely the grownups must know what they’re doing, and the government hadn’t seen fit to forbid it by law. My juvenile brain was still developing; surely, someday, I would understand.

.
Of course, this was about a year after the monumental Roe v. Wade decision. Abortion was now a sacred civil right, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. If this was murder, those Nine Wise Souls would never allow it, much less lend their explicit approval to the practice. Right?

I talked to my mother. I discussed it with my pastor. Both were resolutely noncommittal as to the ethics of it all. Thanks for nothing.

The years came and went. The public debate waxed and waned, keeping time with the political seasons. Presidential elections and Supreme Court nominations seemed to bring out the crazies on all sides. In time I arrived at a firm conviction: this is wrong. And it’s also unnecessary: If you’re not prepared for parenthood, about a million childless couples stand ready to give your baby a loving home.

And what if it would endanger your life to carry that child to term? I’d be willing to grant exceptions for such. My passion is to save lives, so I’m not interested in sacrificing yours.

Apart from the morality of the act itself, I am equally troubled by the nature of our public discourse. We don’t just claim that the other guy is wrong; we tell him that he’s evil. This hateful invective infects our relationships, and it keeps us from engaging in any kind of meaningful dialogue. It helps no one, and it poisons the well for any future engagement.

I’ve been reminded, again and again, that my opinion is unimportant and my perspective should not be heard. You see, it appears that I don’t possess a uterus. As such, I will never know the anxiety of an unwanted pregnancy. I can never experience the horror of carrying my rapist’s child. Men have ruled over women for all of human history (and they selfishly caused these unwanted pregnancies!), so I should just butt out.

Seriously?

Many a commentator has twisted himself into knots, trying to argue that a mere cluster of cells is not a living person; it has no rights, and it can’t be killed. And it will remain in this transitional state, until (insert arbitrary gestation duration here). The problem with this kind of argument, of course, is that it’s utterly unscientific.

Let me explain. The other thing that I learned in the seventh grade was a bit of history. Aristotle, one of the great thinkers of ancient Greece, was a firm believer in spontaneous generation. Essentially, this means that living things magically spring forth out of non-living materials. This (it was thought) explained the appearance of maggots on dead flesh, and the emergence of insects out of dirt. This notion was accepted as scientific fact for thousands of years.

That was, until the 19th century, when Louis Pasteur discovered germs. In an experiment with beef broth, he confirmed his belief in biogenesis. That is, only a living thing can beget another living thing, and this by a process called reproduction. Or briefly (in Latin), omne vivum ex vivo (all life comes from life).

And yet today, over a hundred years later, some among us want to believe that a living human – the most advanced and complex organism ever to appear on the planet – grows spontaneously out of a lifeless lump. Only a religious nutcase would ever subscribe to the wild idea that life begins at conception (even though all scientific evidence tells us that it does).

Really?

But then again, this debate was never really about science in the first place. Like the current dispute about global warming, it’s at least equal parts about politics. It’s a club that you can use against your opponent, to cast him as evil and ignorant, to win the argument. Or the election. Or the lawsuit.

Recently, a friend of mine accepted a position as the director of a pregnancy crisis center. This is where a woman can go for a pregnancy test, counseling, encouragement, material assistance, education, and advice on alternatives to abortion. Recently, they acquired an ultrasound machine; many women, when they can see the perfectly formed human within, quickly make the decision to keep their baby.

In recent months, several states have enacted new laws to restrict abortions. It’s only a matter of time until one of them provokes a legal challenge, and makes its way to the Supreme Court. With a new bench in place, assumed to be right-leaning, Roe itself could very well end up in the medical waste dump of history.
.