When does—or did—life begin?
For human beings, which are complex life forms, life does not begin at conception—it began a long time ago when the first life forms formed from nonlife forms; instead, life continues at conception.
Life as we know it consists of organic compounds.
A compound is a combination of complex molecules.
Molecules are combinations of atoms.
For example, H2O is the chemical symbol for water, and shows that two atoms of hydrogen (H) can combine with one atom of oxygen (O) to produce one molecule of water.
And from organic compounds, life can form, simple life forms, eventually leading to complex life forms.
Thus, for human beings, life began a long time ago. It began when the first organic compounds formed from inorganic compounds, when the first organic molecules formed, when the first organic compounds formed the first single-celled life forms, when the single-celled life forms formed multi-celled life forms—complex life forms, and when complex life forms formed organs and thus more complex life forms, forming, eventually, human life forms.
Each sperm and each egg is one-half of a human being, one-half of an incomplete human personality.
When combined at conception the single sperm and the single egg become a whole human being, a complete human personality.
Thus, the human sperm and the human egg are life forms which can combine to continue life if only given a chance for conception.
If the chance for conception is denied, the sperm and the egg will die. They will not have the chance to continue life.
Because they are human life forms which can continue human life, should the human sperm and the human egg be given the right to continue life?
What is a medical abortion?
A medical abortion is the deliberate termination of life/prevention of the continuance of life by surgical procedures.
Is a medical abortion ever necessary to save the life of the mother?
In health crises wherein the life of a mother is endangered, a medical abortion can save the life of the mother and thus is necessary, but ONLY is necessary if the focus is upon the mother and not the child. If the focus is upon the child, then a medical abortion is unnecessary, although a Caesarean Section could be performed in some cases where the baby’s life is endangered and thus have the function not necessarily of saving the mother’s life but of saving the child’s life.
Is a medical abortion manslaughter? Murder? The termination of life? The prevention of the continuance of life?
Surely a medical abortion is the termination of life, but at the same time it is the prevention of the continuance of life.
Should we regard any process which prevents the chance for conception and thus the continuance of life as an abortion? As manslaughter? As murder?
Can the word “No!” perform the same function as an abortion—preventing the continuance of life?
YES!!! It CAN!!! And it does!!! No rational mind can deny that the word “No!” prevents the continuance of life through preventing the opportunity/chance for conception.
If birth control methods are used for controlling the possibility/chances of conception and the continuance of life, then birth control methods—even the so-called rhythm method—are forms of abortions.
If through recreational sex and birth control methods we are willing to prevent the chances for conception and thus the continuance of human life for any reason—convenience in particular, then we are willing to commit a de facto [in fact] abortion.
If through the word “No!” and birth control methods we are willing to prevent the continuance of life, and thus perform the same function as an abortion, why should anyone label an abortion as manslaughter, or murder, and why should they be against an abortion for convenience?
We thus see that the labeling of a medical abortion as manslaughter/murder is a personal choice rather than a necessity. Even if laws are passed condemning medical abortion to be manslaughter/murder, these laws are the result of human choice and not of necessity.
Why should we take a different attitude towards medical abortions?
Overpopulation can be the result of taking the extreme position that all sperm and all eggs should be given the right to the chance for conception and the continuance of life.
With modern medical procedures, it is possible to isolate individual sperm and eggs and give them the chance for conception and the continuance of life.
Should we pass laws forbidding recreational sex?
Should we pass laws requiring the harvesting/collection/storage of sperm and eggs for future conception and continuance of life?
Should we thus create the Gamete Police? Or The Sperm Police? The Egg Police?
Should men who engage in recreational sex be required to use a condom and call the Sperm Police so that the condom can be collected?
Should women be required to have their eggs harvested—suctioned out of their bodies?
Women are efficient at reproduction. They, produce, on average, only one egg per menstrual cycle, and thus offering, on average, only one egg at a time for conception. Thus, if the Egg Police require women to submit to the harvesting of their cyclic eggs, then the process is efficient—we will now when the eggs are likely to be present and can schedule the women to be suctioned.
Men are inefficient at reproduction. during each average ejaculation, men produce 600 million to 600 billion sperm, only one of which will actually fertilize an egg and thus continue life. This is like using a shotgun to hit a clay pigeon. Or, more to the point, like using a thousand shotguns to hit one clay pigeon.
Should we require laboratories to collect condoms, separate the 600 million-600 billion sperm per ejaculation/per condom [on average] into individual storage bins for use in future conceptions?
Who would make the decision concerning which sperm would be given an opportunity to fertilize an egg?
Are we not better off accepting the fact that we can control our reproduction through birth control and abortions, that we do not need to overpopulate the Earth, and let people as individuals do what they want with their bodies?
It is true that many childless couples, even individuals, would like to adopt babies. We should, therefore, make the adoption process legally easier, and more affordable, so those women who want to carry their babies to birth but are unable, for any reason, mental, physical, economic, social, etc., to care for their babies are able to offer them to people who want them.
But that should be the choice of the mother.
If we focus upon the mother and her needs and what she wants, then all of the abortion issue is easy to resolve.
But if we insist upon focusing upon the child, then the abortion issue becomes difficult to resolve, and we find conflicts and name-calling and violence more likely to happen, none of which is good for us, for our society, or for our country.
Which came first—the chicken or the egg?
That is, the first organic compound was the “parent” of all subsequent organic compounds, and the first organism was the “parent” of all subsequent organisms, the first chicken as the “parent” of all subsequent eggs and resulting chickens, therefore the chicken came before the egg.
And so it is that mothers should come before their eggs, before even their fertilized eggs.
If people are to accept the fact that life does not begin at conception but is continued at conception, then we can see better what choices we can have and what choices we want to make in the abortion issue.
Does life begin at conception? Or does life continue at conception?
We can see that life began a long time ago when the first organic compounds formed from inorganic compounds, we see that we are the result of an unbroken chain of life leading back to the first life forms, and we can see that, therefore, we have justification for concluding that life does not begin at conception but instead continues at conception.