Looks like there was a rehash of a bill that failed last year requiring doctors to tell women that human life begins when the sperm hits the egg. SB 146 got a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but Sen. Bray, the chairman, delayed a vote.
I have to get going, so I won’t do my own rehashing just yet. But, still, government getting in the business of legislating a scientific fact is reminiscent of the General Assembly’s 19th century attempt at legislating the value of pi.
My wife jolted me upright with a comment recently. We were driving on I-465 on the norht side of Indy and she saw a billboard touting the early, early birth (like 24 or 25 weeks) and survival. It bothered her.
How could this bother her, I asked, fairly stunned. You have to understand- she’s a staunch believer in a woman’s right to an abortion. But, as premies are being saved at an earlier and earlier point of birth, she very much fears that the question will be called.
Just 10 years ago, a premie birth at even 30 weeks was generally not going to survive. Medical advances are incredible. She told me it’s been advancing roughly a week every other year for a while now. So, this brings in the whole question of when life begins.
To me, it’s a non-starter. Life begins at conception. The real question has been viability, and when the state will begin to protect a life. Thus far, the state will not begin to protect a life, as I see it, until the 3rd trimester. But that is increasingly at odds with viability. If viable at 25 weeks, can we morally have an abortion at 24 weeks? I couldn’t support it in good conscience.
So, we started to have a conversation about viability and when life begins, and at what point should the state begin to protect that life. I joked that real viability (meaning, self-sufficiency/non-dependency)isn’t present in any young child, most teens, and damn well most adults. She didn’t find that funny, but even though I was joking, I think the argument should be taken to its’ logical conclusion if we’re talking about authorizing ‘termination’ for the non-viable. Think that one through.
I think most people have a real disconnect about this, and that billboard, and the info it contains unwittingly or not, is important. I believe this discussion, and Roe v Wade is in for a real test, and it’s bound to cause some cognitive dissonance for those on the left who tell us we should observe facts in some areas of life (science and climate change) but perhaps not others (science and human viability).
The question isn’t when life begins. A tapeworm is life, and we don’t care. The question is when *human* life begins and what it is about human life that we deem valuable.
What is the precise reason we value human life more than a tapeworm? Simple prejudice? Nah, there is something about humanity that makes it more valuable than lesser creatures. O.k. Easy enough with a tapeworm.
But, take the questions a little further and start thinking about the comparative value of a healthy, active, smart middle aged dog versus a human with little to no brain function in a vegetative state. Which life is more worthy of protection?
Is the valuableness of a human life the simple fact of having the right kind of DNA, the right number of chromosomes, and a heart beat? Or is there something more precious that we’re protecting, and does the absence of that precious thing (whatever it is) remove the (biologically) human’s right to protection?
Tough questions, in my mind. Others seem content with simple answers to these questions. Maybe they’re smarter than me.
Viability will not continue to improve beyond a certain point. I know there have been tremendous advancements up to this point, but except for rare instances I don’t think we’re going to be reliably saving preemies younger than 22 or 23 weeks no matter how good the science gets. At the same time, whatever small margin we’re able to move viability back will be at a tremendous financial cost.
Currently a 26 week birth can expect a quarter to half million dollar hospital bill. That’s a worthwhile use of funds, but that number will go up tremendously each additional week of prematurity. But you can’t put a dollar amount on human life, right? I communicate half a dozen times a day with insurance companies that do exactly that. I certify a medical need, they say no, and we do it again. Start spending a million or more dollars routinely pushing the envelope of viability a few days, and someone has to pay that bill.
But removing the cost from the equation, there are still going to be some pretty absolute physiological constraints around 21-22 weeks that we’re probably not going to get around.
The whole issue of what to pay to maintain a life–young (premees or old or simply condition)–will likely continue to be an issue. As medical science makes it possible to keep “alive” (a condition currently requiring legal determination) about any condition—there is likely to one day be a social thinking change simply based on cost vs benefit basis. The reason is that the cost to everyone becomes a burden that may not be able to be borne. Many can relate a story of a premee hospital bill being a hundred pages long and totally a half a million—that will never be paid by the parent –or a comatose or otherwise severely damaged individual–and most will have to be paid by any insured and/or user of the same facility. The whole shared expenses (medical, education, etc. etc.) will likely become a hotter issue in the not too distant future. Moral thinking may take a back seat to financial realities–how much am I willing to give up/pay to benefit others?
We have seen more and more concern being expressed as to how much should others pay to “welfare mothers” who continue to have children which are certain to become wards of the state. For most of us there is no simple answers to any of these questions.
Mike: That billboard struck me in the exact same way as your wife. I had my triplets at 29 weeks and saw a few in the NICU that were a little younger. We were fortunate not to have any long-term medical problems except for ADD which I think they got honestly from their dad :-). If they hadn’t had lung treatments while they were still in-utero they might have had more. I like your term “viable.”