Does life begin now? ...or now? ...or now?! ...oh, wait, NOW! I get it.

Since I started on an abortion rant, I'll continue on that vein before I move onto another topic.

Abortion is a complicated issue. My last post was a bit scatterbrained at times, but that happens when the blogger writing it is amid finals and such. It got its point across nonetheless, I think.

However, on to an issue within the issue:

When does life begin?

The theories that I hear the most tend to be...

• Conception
• Heartbeat
• Third trimester
• Birth

With a couple others occasionally sprinkled in between.

This post will be less numbers-based, and more LD-debate form based.

For those of you not fortunate enough to have been on a high school debate team, LD stands for Lincoln-Douglas, the two presidential candidates known for starting the whole presidential debate phenomenon. It's the only official form of debating (correct me if I'm wrong, I might be, I was only on the team for two years) that has a functional basis in morality rather than legality. For instance, the given topic is phrased in terms of "ought" and "should," rather than in "is" and "is not," for the most part. Legal terms and facts are certainly useful in argument--but the topic, and therefore the attempted end point, is related to what should or ought to be the case. An LD topic would not be "This chair exists," but rather "This chair ought to be labeled as existing." I hope you get the gist.

Rae's topic: "Life ought to be considered to begin at birth."

First, semantics.

Life is the state of living. Seems like a simple statement, but it must be said.

Medically, all that being alive requires is a heartbeat and brain activity.

Philosophically, being alive requires much more than that. I'm not talking carpe diem philosophy--I'm more referring to the idea of having quality of life being more important than being technically alive. Quality of existence over quantity of beats per minute.

I would argue that being alive requires:

• Heartbeat
• Ability to think
• Ability to interact
• Ability to survive independently

Fetuses may have a heartbeat. Fetuses may have thoughts. Fetuses may even interact with their mothers through intrauterine movements. But before a certain point, a fetus could not survive independently of its mother.

I'm not saying that the premature babies who would die outside of the incubator aren't alive. They are. They're breathing, they're interacting, their hearts are beating, they are surviving an existenct that is more than what could be considered (I wish I could find a less caustic way to put this) a leech off of a mother's body. Once outside the womb, the heartbeat and brain activity qualifications can be used. (I won't go into vegetables. I don't talk about Terri Schiavo in my abortion posts. Onward.)

As soon as a fetus has a high chance of surviving on its own, away from the umbilical cord, then that fetus could be considered alive.

Small contradiction, you may say: How can you know whether a fetus could survive outside of its mother at, say, x number of weeks?
My answer: You can't, without taking the thing out and seeing if it lives. Sure, you could take case examples, and say that at 32 weeks, a baby could more likely survive than at 30 weeks, but every fetus is different; take two babies born prematurely, both at 28 weeks, even with the same medical treatment, and one may live, the other may not. You can't know.

Let's even take a phrase that the pro-lifers like to throw around: a fetus is a potential life.

I agree. (Don't gasp too hard--it's bad for your lungs.)

However, let's look at semantics yet again.

This time, let's get some help from good ol' Merriam-Webster.

Potential: adj : existing in possibility; capable of development into actuality

Something that is potential exists in possibility, not in actuality. It is capable of developing into actuality--but not actuality yet. It isn't, until it is. And while it still has the label of "potential," it isn't. Only when the label is dropped--then it is.

A potential problem isn't a problem. A potential profit isn't a profit. A potential skill isn't a skill. A potential house isn't a house.

A potential life isn't a life.

A problem isn't a problem until it's a problem. A profit does you no good until it's a profit. A skill won't get you a job until you have it. You'll be homeless until the house is actually there.

Life isn't life until it's a life.

Therefore, until you can know for a fact that a fetus could survive independently--independently meaning without umbilical cord, i.e. without direct nourishment from a mother, even if respirators and such are needed occasionally--then it is not independently alive. You can't know until it happens. Until it is actually on its own, it is a part of the mother, just like a finger or toe or nose or shoulder is part of the mother.

And yet no one raises hell when a woman wants to amputate a finger.

Conclusion: Life begins with the ability to be independent from the umbilical cord, which is unknown until such independence is gained. Therefore, life ought, no, can only be considered to begin with birth.

And that's your Rae of Light for the moment.

Peace, love, and "potential,"
~ RaeAn