Amoeba Rules

11-3-10

1.1 For most of my 52 years, I have believed and practiced several religions. These include yoga, Eckankar (the Ancient Science of Soul Travel), several forms of Christianity, and Buddhism. Throughout all this religious devotion, I have assumed at root that I have (or am) a soul, an individual spirit.

1.2 Now though reason having escaped religion, I doubt there is anything spiritual, eternal, or independent of material being in me. I am a natural being, a highly evolved animal, the highest of the hominids; but I am also in essence a "clump of cells", and nothing more.

1.3 This last phrase I borrow from an unnamed abortion advocate, who (in)famously referred to the early-stage occupant of a pregnant woman's womb as a "clump of cells". Back in the 1990's, during my Bible Christian phase, I developed a stepwise reasoning about abortion. It was fairly simple, and since it pertains to the matter of soul, I will repeat it here.

1.4 A. The Unborn Biological Entity (UBE) is a living being; therefore it has a specific name. B. Clearly, the UBE is not a lobster or a squirrel. According to its genetic and phenotypic characteristics, the species name of the UBE is Homo sapiens. C. The UBE is genetically unique; it partakes of both maternal and paternal genes. As such, it is not part of the mother, but is an individual. Therefore the entire "control our own bodies" argument is irrelevant to this question. D. Since the UBE is an individual Homo sapiens, killing it is homicide; abortion is homicide.

1.5 Whether abortion is justifiable homicide is another and very important question. The laws we make about this practice are an important issue to woman and also to men. However, as to the essential question of whether abortion involves killing a human being: reason speaks plainly.

1.6 Of course, the conclusion "abortion is homicide" is really a tautology, since abortion means stopping a human pregnancy by destroying the UBE, and the UBE is a human being. However at this last and vital point, opponents will attack. They will try to prove that the UBE is not fully human. Let us look at the (admittedly amusing) results of this attempted rebuttal.

1.7 If, for any reason, the UBE, at any stage of development from conception to birth, is not in some sense human, when does it become human? When does the "clump of cells" become a full person? When does the eradicable nuisance become a tenderly-awaited child-in-the-womb? Or when is a baby not a baby?

1.8 I suggest, based on my observations since Roe v. Wade (1973), that a "pregnancy" becomes a fully-protected "baby" when, and only when, the mother says so. The man, the would-be father, despite that he has a genetic stake and a legal obligation for support, has no say in the matter. However, male reproductive rights are a question for another time.

1.9 Alternatively, a "baby" becomes a disposable "clump of cells" by the same mother's word. I will assume that there is no transforming magical power in language; that a woman's words cannot physically change a "clump of cells" into a "baby" or vice versa. Therefore, we as a society have left the determination of human life, the entire philosophical and ethical and humanitarian question, in the hands of a pregnant woman.

1.10 This artifact of modern mal-reasoning points to a simple truth: human life has no inherent value. If a hormonally-stressed woman is allowed to make life-or-death decisions about her Unborn Biological Entity, then (at least according to the law of this land) the UBE has whatever value she gives it, and nothing more. Despite all our illusions of grandeur, this human "clump of cells" is essentially a clump of amoebas. QED

NB: One wishes that the authors and proponents of Roe v. Wade, 1973, had considered this logical result during their deliberations.