When the argument isn’t over ‘when life begins’

Part of the pro-life effort in the world is education about fundamental human embryology, the understanding that from the moment of conception, a new life of the species homo sapiens is now present with his or her own genetic makeup determined in the DNA etc., etc., and that it’s not a ‘blob of tissue’ that will become a human.

Pro-life activists don’t understand how pro-abortion activists can deny the existence (and taking) of life. Some important legislation working its way through the states requires informed consent in abortion clinics that informs women not only of the risk of the procedure, but the existence of the human life that procedure terminates.

That whole argument back and forth, for decades now, has been over the issue of when life begins, and the tortured logic of abortion activists who claim the abortionists’ right to free speech (saying anything they want, or not) trumps a woman’s right to know. (Which always gets into the claim that the embryonic human life is a ‘blob of tissue’…)

But there’s this whole separate other argument that gets little attention and needs to be engaged by pro-life people. It’s the one Princeton ethicist Peter Singer advances famously (notoriously) to argue for infanticide not only through partial-birth abortion, but even after a child is born. It’s over the issue of personhood, and the point at which it is ‘conferred’ on a human life in order to deem it as life worthy of constitutional protection.

As his fellow Princeton professor Robert George explains, Singer’s argument (though reprehensible), is the most intellectually consistent. Because Singer admits that from conception, human life exists. That’s beside the point for him and like-minded activists. The point is when society should deem a human a person worthy of life.

So….more professionals are engaging that argument. Prominently.

Colorado for Equal Rights has announced the support of over 70 physicians and pharmacists, including neonatologists, family physicians, ob-gyns, pediatricians, and other physicians nationwide. These physicians have stated that they concur with the statement, “A ‘person’ includes any human from the time of fertilization.” A list of these physicians is available at http://www.personhood2008.com.

The “Personhood Amendment” will appear on the 2008 Colorado ballot.

Sponsored by [Kristi] Burton, a 20-year-old law student, the Personhood Amendment states: “Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado…the terms ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.”

We discussed this on ‘America’s Lifeline’ with Robert George on July 19, an interview well worth listening to on those audio archives. I would love to hear one of these famous debates between George and Singer.

We have to be well informed on the issues and the news. Like the “Great Ape Project” (links here among many other blogs and news sites). Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith has a good piece here and always great resources on his blog.

Singer’s intent was (and is) to destroy human exceptionalism—the belief that human life matters morally simply because it is human—and replace it with a “quality of life” ethic in which being a “person” rather than a human is what matters morally.

Personhood status would be earned by possessing minimal cognitive capacities such as being self aware over time. This means, Singer wrote in Practical Ethics, that “some members of other species are persons: some members of our own species are not.” The latter category includes the unborn, infants, people with catastrophic cognitive impairments.

One consequence of replacing the sanctity/equality of human life with the “quality of life” ethic would be the destruction of universal human rights.

Read this piece and pass it on. This has to be engaged in public debate and resisted through informed voting. Look what can happen through both.