No doubt someone will argue: but neither the sperm cell nor the ovum are complete organisms in the same way as one-celled organisms. However, I’d argue: yes, but the sperm and ovum are alive as much as any living cell in a human body.

The idea that we commonly accept that a sperm cell is alive is reflected in the word “spermicide,” which means an agent that kills sperm cells, such as is used in a contraceptive. If sperm cells can be killed, then obviously they are alive. And if sperm cells are alive, surely an ovum is also alive (unless it died).

So rather than having a beginning of life, what we have is a continuity of life that goes back and back and back, generation after generation. If you believe in the story currently told by science, this continuity of life extends back something like 3.5 billion years to some unknown primeval organism that sprang non-life. If you believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic story, you can trace the continuity of all human life back to Adam.

Now one could have asked a different question: “When does a human life begin?” Phrased that way, I would say the emphasis is clearly on the life of a human individual. And the answer to that question is “At conception. Or possibly a bit later, if at some point the embryo splits into two, and becomes identical twins.”

Even so, notice that the question “When does a life begin?” is very similar to the question, “Where does a leaf begin?” A leaf begins where its stem is connected to a twig. But the life of the leaf does not exist apart from the tree. Humans are also connected and growing on a great tree of life. But to see the connectedness and the tree, you have to include the time dimension.

So what does all this have to do with the abortion question? Perhaps not much. But it does show that “Life begins at conception” is overly simplistic and wrong thinking. Who knows? If it is wrong to kill a zygote, maybe it is equally wrong to kill a sperm cell or ovum? Maybe someone who masturbates and flushes his semen down the toilet is committing genocide?

In Garbhkopanishada (One of the commentaries on Vedas), it is mentioned that the soul with its previous accumulations enters the fetus in the seventh month and takes full control of the body – its carrier for life.

The two thoughts one most modern and one most ancient miraculusly coinside at least in this particular instance. That furthers my confidence with a logically parallel concept one proved scientifically and one Inspired through meditation.

Laxman

As regards the question “when does life begin,” there is virtually no disagreement in the scientific community that the answer is conception. That is when a new organism is formed, and organism that does not eve become a different organism. This is a matter of scientific fact.

The question then, in the abortion debate, is not “when does life begin” but when does human life become worthy of defense and demand our protection in law. Some say birth, some say conception, some, like Peter Singer at Princeton, say sometime after birth. Reasonable people disagree as to whether a fetus is a “person” or the moral equivalent of an adult. That is an imprtant debate. But the question of the origin of life is clear…not religiously, but scientifically. The value of life remains a question of one’s moral vision of the universe.

Now hold up a second – I’m not saying you’re unjustified in thinking that. In fact, I suspect it’s quite likely that McCain is looking to have a lot of meaning read into that statement. And it’s that sort of code-word politics that undermines attempts by either side to reach common ground; by taking away the language of discourse and replacing it with the language of partisanship. We can’t let that happen.

I think there’s a strong scientific case to be made for the argument that life begins at conception. I also think it’s heartless and terribly unChristian to deny people access to REAL sex education, contraceptives, and so on. I think there are solutions to be reached that the nation as a whole can agree on and that both sides of the spectrum can compromise towards. Nobody is in favour of abortion – and everybody agrees that safety is a priority, for both mother and child. That’s a strong common ground, if we allow it to be.

I think Obama understands this, and I think he’s also a genuine Christian – the kind that practices compassion and peacefulness, not the Pat Robertson sort – and I look forward to seeing his approach to the abortion issue and hearing more about it. It’s something that I approach with an open mind because I want the issue solved for the good of the whole nation. Perhaps I’m not the average pro-lifer, but I think I make a case that the average pro-lifer could relate to.

I don’t know if Ann Althouse and the rest of her ideological compatriots are thick skulled, simply braindead stupid, or both, but their argument of Obama’s answer on the abortion question at this forum means that he stands on both sides of the issue confounds me. Furthermore, it overlooks the sensitivity of his answer, and his addressing of the actual issue afterwards.

On the sensitivity front, Obama said “…ultimately I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with these pastors or their spouses or their doctors and their family members.” Have we ever heard any asshole Republican politician say this? No, of course not, because it’s their side that wants to equate abortion defenders with child molesters, communists, terrorists, et al. All the right has here are vile demonizations to spew forth against anyone who doesn’t tow their line. Have any of these jerks ever talked with a women considering an abortion? Or who had an abortion? Have they ever had a serious discussion with them? If they had, they would realize the issue is not as black and white as they like to make it out as. And the people we don’t need having any control over the abortion issue right now are stuffy old conservative men who can’t even fathom what it’s like to be a single parent in an America where these same stuffy old conservative men will call them “welfare mothers” for daring to survive. These men never have to face such a decision because they’re men. Then Obama dares to address the sensitivity surrounding the abortion issue and these people can’t shut up about how he’s trying to play both sides? Fuck them.

Secondly, onto the actual issue, Obama said: “So for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground; and by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic Party platform — is, how do we reduce the number of abortions?”

Yes, how do we? Especially since abortions only increase during Republican administrations. Regardless, I understand Obama’s statement because I’m pro-choice — but I also understand how difficult this choice is. It’s not a choice that any woman wishes to have. So how do we lessen the chances of such a choice manifesting itself?

There are sure fire answers to this: more sex education, ready availability of birth control and condoms, etc… Of course, the stuffy old conservative men don’t want these options discussed because it’s against their religion, and they want to force everyone to live like them.

And that’s just the crux of the matter, isn’t it? Obama is wrong about both sides finding “commn ground” on the abortion issue because the Republicans don’t want to do such. They never have. Instead of reducing the number of abortions, increasing sex education and helping women, these moral crusaders want to make abortion illegal — the consequences of which are forcing women who need a choice into unsafe abortions. More infections, more deaths. But they don’t give a flying fuck about this because, quite frankly, these men of supposed morals don’t have hearts.

This issue sickens me — and their response to Obama’s supposed hypocrisy more so. If anything was offensive here, it was McCain’s answer that life begins at conception — in other words, his statement that he’s willing to place women’s lives at risk just to score political points. What a fucking asshole.