I don’t understand how late term abortions can be justified* morally, but there are some pretty serious milestones in that first trimester and I can understand why reasonable people disagree about which one is truly the beginning of life.

After all, before we knew about brainwaves, we would have marked the first heartbeat as the beginning. And there was a time when we couldn’t observe the heartbeat either.

*Except in that rare case where a doctor literally has to choose one life to avoid losing both.

I am rusty on human development but I believe it is because it is a human organism and so can develop the ability to act independently. The same is not true of a gamete which is considered a shed cell of the parent organism.

The brainwave argument is basically the same argument used by religious people who believed life began when the soul entered the body. I see no reason to prize one religion or philosophy over another. If we do that then it should be up to the legislature of the state to define life. I have qualms about that as Jews could thus be defined as non-persons.

Not only that, but also the fact that a geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. The same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being.

It’s not unreasonable to suggest that brainwaves are a prerequisite for personhood. After all, that’s what we use to define the end of life.

Then it’s not unreasonable to use the same method to determine the beginning of life.

Brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days.

“However, there is a reasonable disagreement over what constitutes an “individual” Jeff Molby

Not Really! If you use biology then the zygote is considered an individual member of the species.

Why? Because it has a full complement of DNA? Because it’s capable of splitting? That’s a pretty low standard that will cover more than you intend.

It’s not unreasonable to suggest that brainwaves are a prerequisite for personhood. After all, that’s what we use to define the end of life.

Not Really! If you use biology then the zygote is considered an individual member of the species. If instead you choose to ignore science, then according to common law life begins at quickening. Our legal system with the exception of Louisiana are common law systems. The question is whether the states or federal legislation have the legal authority to alter that definition. Whatever the case the federal courts don’t, so Roe v. Wade is faulty.

It is incredibly reasonable for people to be disgusted by that conclusion.

This isn’t a black and white issue, though; there are several possible conclusions that a rational person can reach and it should come as no surprise that different states would legislate the matter differently. If we don’t think state governments are the appropriate venue for such a contentious, irreconcilable issue, what issues should they handle?

FYI:

“While this may be good news for those who advocate national abortion standards, it is less attractive for those who think that states have a moral authority worth saving.” Although U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), voted for the [partial-birth abortion] ban, he expressed his wariness in a speech he gave before the House of Representatives on June 4, 2003:
“The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.

Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion.” “Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well…I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.”