In the thread of meaningless logic used in the service of theology (last one here), we may add this proposed law for Indiana, known as HOUSE BILL No. 1089:
Synopsis: Protection of life. Repeals the statutes authorizing and regulating abortion. Finds that human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm. Asserts a compelling state interest in protecting human physical life from the moment that human physical life begins. Provides that court decisions to enjoin the law are void. Specifies the duty of Indiana officials to enforce the law. Specifies that federal officials attempting to enforce contrary court orders against Indiana officials enforcing the law shall be subject to arrest by Indiana law enforcement. Redefines “human being” for purposes of the criminal code to conform to the finding that human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm. Makes other conforming changes.
It’s quite the bill, isn’t it, rather childishly suggesting that Federal agents and members of the judiciary who find against it will be arrested – this is someone who just can’t tolerate opposing views. The author is Indiana State Legislature Representative Curt Nisly (R-22IN), who, according to Ballotpedia, asserted in his 2014 campaign for office:
Life begins at conception and lasts until one’s natural death. Life is one of the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Taking the innocent life of another denies this fundamental right.
It’s convenient – for him – that he registers life as beginning at egg fertilization (while hiding behind some supposed “finding”). He avoids the “Monty Python Conundrum” of what to do with masturbators, eggs that are never fertilized, and gentlemen who inadvertently have what was called in my youth night emissions, through careful choice of a demarcation point.
While he may think he’s being clever, it actually raises the question of why unfertilized eggs and sperm, as the necessary ingredients to life, are not similarly considered sacred and protected. Without them, there would be no life. That certainly puts them in a special category, doesn’t it?
If you accept a merely fertilized egg is, somehow, alive.
Unfortunately for him, human life is characterized by independent motility and intelligence, as well as a primary independence, and while we can use these to characterize an infant as not human life, the objection is nothing more than wistful: it’s a rare mother who’ll actually discard an infant – we’re not wired for it. The objection would require a vivid imagination.
Quite simply, we have not evolved enough English words to describe the situation. We have death, we have life, then we have that length of time when Mom is pregnant – but that specifies the mother, not the entity inside. It’s not capable of surviving without medical help outside of the womb, so it’s not alive by the above standards, but it has potential to reach it, if its DNA is a good enough interpretation of the two contributions, if nutrition is good, if not to many allergies are developed during the pregnancy, if the mother isn’t killed in some sort of horrid accident – such as violating Indiana theological law. And then we don’t seem to have a term for sperm and eggs which captures its special qualities. Or maybe we do. Lunch sits heavily in me, and my cleverness isn’t what it should be.
In the end, the longer we remain entangled in the irrationalities of theology, formal or informal, the longer these arguments will continue. It would be far better if we sat down, as members of a secular and rational society, and asked, in practical terms, Why is murder forbidden in our society (I suggest the societal instabilities brought on by the sudden and intentional deaths of its members will lead to society’s termination, or at least stagnation), and then ask how abortion could lead to the same, especially in the face of 25-50% of pregnancies already ending in miscarriages, without apparent damage to society.
Or, we can use my previously suggested solution:
Since we’re currently in the domain of someone who believes their theology should be law, that lets us place God at the scene of the crime.
Yep, that’s right. If you have God, then God must have planned the whole thing, right? So the old saying goes, at least: God has a plan for everything. God Is Responsible, since miscarriages are, by definition, not induced by humans.
I’m a reasonable person, or at least that’s part of my personal set of delusions, and so I realize that imprisoning a divine, all-powerful being could only occur if he, A) permits it, and B) can be found.
Neither condition seems likely to be fulfilled.
Similar arguments apply to the imposition of fines on the divine being.
Therefore, in order to discourage God from committing crimes in the State of Ohio, I recommend finding his or her or its ordained representatives and imposing appropriate penalties on them. Now, I recognize that, because there are multiple sects involved in the worship of said creature, it’s actually difficult to ascertain which one, if any, is the duly authorized and recognized (by it) representative, in the body of the leader of the sect, and which are merely well-meaning but deluded, psychopaths with agendas, or indolent parasites, nor is it the role of a secular state to make that determination.
But I will not throw my hands up in the air at this conundrum! Instead, let me supply a convenient answer which side-steps the intellectually obstinate theological questions raised above, and that is this:
Let the author of this delusionary segment of the bill be identified; from there, their sect & church may be further identified; and let the fines for the involuntary miscarriages be levied against that sect and its adherents, no matter how large or how small. Let’s be generous to God and impose no more nor less than $5000 per miscarriage. Furthermore, if that sect should disband for any reason, then the section on ectopic pregnancy shall be null and void.
Does this sound like madness? I am a practicing software engineer, logic is my everyday business. I’m simply practicing a bit of logic here. So, if this sounds like madness, perhaps we should go back to the assumption that a fertilized egg is somehow a person, and re-think what I consider to be a specious, and even malignant, assumption.
These daft proposed laws should surely signal there’s something wrong with their foundational assumptions, not with a society which sails along merrily without those laws in place.
And that off-the-cuff observation, now that I’ve reread it, may be the best argument against this whole “life starts at conception” brief.
