- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I prefer a scientific approach. Life does begin at conception, does it not? Or even before? I mean, in a technical sense, are not sperm and eggs alive? Microscopic bacteria and amoeba are alive. I don't think it's conceding anything on the abortion issue to acknowledge that a brand new embryo is "alive." That's just not the issue. As someone else mentioned before, we destroy IVF embryos all the time. We kill critters great and small. Whether a second-old embryo is the beginning of "human life"--is that the critical question? I'm getting confused, but I'm trying to get at that of course an embryo is "life" in some technical sense. That doesn't change anything at all about the abortion debate.
Speaking of which, whenever people mention that one candidate is "for" and one "against" abortion, I simply say that in fact both are "against." I say that the candidates differ only in their plan to reduce abortion. One wants to criminalize, the other wants to reduce through various health education initiatives.
