» Life begins at birth (duh!)

13 September 2005 - 5:32pm

Life begins at birth (duh!)

media girl's picture

When one person breathes, one person eats, one person shits, then there's (duh!) one person.

A woman is one person. A pregnant woman is one person.

When a baby is born, that is the beginning of the baby's life.

And before anyone scoffs at that notion, consider that life-beginning-at-birth is how we as a people, in our own culture, treat the entire issue. Consider:

When a baby is born, there is a birth certificate. The birth certificate is used to confer rights. When you can vote, when you can drive, when you can drink, when you can marry, when you join catechism, when you have a bar/bat mitzvah, when you qualify for Social Security, when you go to kindergarten, when you can sign legal contracts by yourself, when you are eligible to be drafted, when you qualify for Medicare, when you can get a discount at the movies, and every other way we as a society determine age-contingent matters. We say, "Since the day I was born," to indicate our entire lives. Our tombstones show the year of death following the year of birth.

We celebrate birthdays, not erections, not that moment Mom and Dad did the dirty in the back seat of the car. We talk of "one on the way" (but not yet here). When a baby is born, we say, "A new life came into this world." We send out birth announcements. Christenings happen after birth. And as we have bridal showers before the woman is a bride, we have baby showers before the woman gives birth to a baby.

When a woman menstruates, we don't have a funeral. When there's a miscarriage, there can be terrible suffering and grief, but there's no funeral or death certificate. When a birth delivers a dead fetus, it is called "stillborn," not the death of a 9-month-old baby.

Even in the rhetoric employed by those who advocate government control of women's bodies employs very clear language: "unborn" and "pre-born." Both terms mean, literally, "not born," meaning not yet of this world, not yet persons.

It's a romantic to engage in nostalgia for the man's small contribution by entertaining notions of life beginning at conception, but conception is just one prerequisite to birthing a new life, along with the billions of events that must happen in the woman's body, including implantation and gestation, use of the woman's body's entire metabolism, sufficient nutrition for the woman, adequate health of the woman, as well as proper progress of all the cellular development within the woman's womb ... and, most important, childbirth.

Of course, we could demand that the government control all contributing factors to human life. Of course, unless one is using artificial insemination, an erection and ejaculation are also required -- so perhaps the government should regulate and control men's penises as well.

Or maybe not. Maybe not, because all of this talk of life beginning at any point other than birth is just ridiculous.

3.6
 
 
About author
User picture

media girl also blogs at other places.

Comments

moiv's picture
moiv says:

Spread it around, and maybe it will catch on!


(13 September 2005 - 6:40pm)
Eric's picture
Eric says:

You may think it's a simple idea, but it's a far from settled assumption to make. I think it gets back to a fundamental difference between "human" vs "humanity". You and I ( and many others ) belief about life has more to do with "humanity" birth begins a life and when there is no more humanity left they are effectivly dead no matter how strong a heartbeat. Pro-Lifers seem to define life as "human". In that sense life does start at conception and ends when there is no more heatbeat and brainwaves. These worldviews are diametricly opposed to each other, but only at the begining and end of the "life".

When you start to see the difference you can start to act and argue in a way that can appeal to them. The compasionate conservative should be more concerend with humanity not just scientifically human.


(14 September 2005 - 9:23am)
media girl's picture

I am just challenging the idea that "life begins at conception," which has pretty much gone unchallenged, and led to all sorts of ridiculous politics, such as so-called "pro-choice" governors vetoing legislation making plan B contraception available to women.

I don't think it's possible to appeal to "pro-life" folks, because when it comes to them, abortion is the feint, the red herring. If they really wanted to reduce abortions, they would support making birth control readily available and back sex education in schools. But they vehemently oppose those things. Why? The only explanation that adds up is that they are really focused on subjugating women. Some have been fairly open about it. Pregnancy is punishment for women who have sex. Birth control and abortion are ways for women to escape this punishment.

You also don't see much "pro-life" support for early childhood programs, daycare, natal healthcare, or even mandatory health insurance coverage of pre-natal care.

I'm not trying to make any scientific distinction, but simply speaking to how we as a culture have been dealing with pregnancy for ages. No, it's not an easy or simple subject, but that only points to the importance of leaving these decisions to the woman who is pregnant, and not to politicians striking poses in capitols.


(14 September 2005 - 10:43am)
Eric's picture
Eric says:

All my comment pointed out was that your definition of "life(tm)" will greatly affect your judgement of when "life(tm)" begins.

Personally the life at conception argument will not even withstand SIMPLE scrutiny by anyone with reason. Let mt lay out one senario that has confounded conservative Pro-Lifers time and time again. By using the foundations of their own belief system you can show how it's a mistake ( but don't expect them to actually listen, they will probably just revert to the old "I can't hear you" tactic ).

1) All life is precious and deserve an equal chance

2) Life begins at conception

First off most Pro-Lifers support abortion in the case of rape or incest. How is that belief compatible with the pricipals of Pro-Life? It's not since a rape or incest fetus is just as much "life" as any other fetus.

Second and more devistating is the following senario. You have the option of saving 1 infant or X fertilised embryos ( that you can transport and know will survive ). When it is morally correct to save the fertilized embryos over the 1 infant? What if there were hundreds? Thousands? When is it acceptable to let a infant die to save embryos?

That second one will bring out all the stops... how choosing the infant does not mean they don't care for all life, how it's impossible to answer such a horrible question, ... anything but confront the delima that cuts to the core of the belief structure. In order to answer the question they must give up one or BOTH core beliefs and begin again with nw beliefs.


(14 September 2005 - 12:30pm)
media girl's picture

Second and more devistating is the following senario. You have the option of saving 1 infant or X fertilised embryos ( that you can transport and know will survive ). When it is morally correct to save the fertilized embryos over the 1 infant? What if there were hundreds? Thousands? When is it acceptable to let a infant die to save embryos?

A fine question to reveal where people really stand. Well said. After all, who's going to say, "Butcher the baby to save the embryos"? (I'm sure some blowhard men in the religion business will find it easy rhetoric to go along with assassinating foreign leaders, judges and (ahem) liberals, but then do those folks count as "human"?)


(14 September 2005 - 1:27pm)
snoopy's picture
snoopy says:

what exactly is the point you are trying to make here? i don't quite understand.... and as a woman who had to labour and deliver an 8 pound DEAD baby you should be careful. have you yourself had a full-term, chubby and otherwise perfectly healthy baby die? have you? so a premature baby born at 20 something weeks and kept alive in an incubator for three months is consider alive... is considered a human.... but a full term baby who dies shortly before birth is not??? draw your line carefully. and again... i'm having trouble understanding the point you are trying to make here... so if you will- explain to me.


(14 September 2005 - 10:33am)
media girl's picture

I'm sorry you suffered such a painful ordeal. Words do not suffice, I know.

I'm not trying to make any point, except to say that there is another view, supported and embedded in our culture, that challenges the superstition that "life begins at conception."

Until there is a baby, separate from the woman's body, there is only one person to deal with, a person with rights recognized by the Constitution. Some people may want to believe life begins when microscopic something happens. The Catholic Church believes every sperm is sacred, and treats men's masturbation as sin. Does life begin with the erection, perhaps?

And if you disagree with me, you know what? That does not oppress me in the least. What oppresses me is when others want to impose their views on everyone else. Anyone is free to believe life begins at conception, and they can live their lives accordingly. Just leave the rest of us out of it, please.


(14 September 2005 - 10:50am)

store

Not Your Emininent Domain!

Buy stuff here.

» Life begins at birth (duh!)