Brain waves

I have offended Cathie Humbarger, executive director of Allen County Right to Life. I wrote an editorial brief saying that House Bill 1172 would require doctors to lie to patients considering an abortion by telling them that a fetus can feel pain and that life begins at conception. In a rebuttal on tonight's editorial page, she cites evidence in support of the idea of fetal pain, states emphatically that life beginning at conception is a scientific fact rather than a theological, ethical or philosphical question and says I am merely repeating almost word for word Planned Parenthood propaganda.

That's the sort of response I would normally just let pass. I spoke my mind, and she's speaking hers. That's what arguing is all about and what editorial pages should try to foster. But she throws this in at the end: "Even though Morris' comments appeared on the editorial page, responsible opinion requires that at least minimal research be completed before leveling false accusations." That's the kind of irritating putdown employed by zealous advocates who want to pound you into submission rather than actually engage in debate: not just "I disagree with you," but how dare you show your stupidity by even bringing up such a position.

I've thought about abortion and read about it for 30 years now. And because my research has mostly been aimed at trying to decide my own opinion about it, I'll stack it up any day against the research by people such as Humbarger (or a Planned Parenthood representative, for that matter), who merely look for whatever information they need to buttress the position they've already decided on, of necessity ignoring at least half the evidence.

For what it's worth, the position I finally arrived at is this: If it makes sense to define the end of life as the cessation of brain function, then it makes sense to define the beginning of life as the start of brain function. Before the brain is present -- or at least the cerebral cortex, which is necessary for self-awareness -- what is present in a woman's body is more like a clump of cells, decisions over which the government should stay out of. After the brain is present, the fetus is more like a human being, and the state therefore has a legitimate stake in its treatment. The Supreme Court, in Roe vs. Wade, should not have imposed its will on the abortion question, short-circuiting a national debate that was taking place in state legislatures. But since it did, it at least was on the right track by recognizing that there is a continuum of life, with different rights for all involved -- the woman, the unborn child, society at large -- coming into play at various places along the continuum. The court just picked the wrong model in "viability," because it should have recognized that advancing medical science would keep moving the point of viability. The brain arrives in an embryo at the same point it always has and always will -- that's my attempt at trying to see the clear "scientific fact" of the situation.

My belief in the appropriate dividing line -- before the brain, one thing; after the brain, another -- informs my sense of what "felt" pain is and when "meaningful human life" begins. You may disagree with my conclusions, and both ardent pro-lifers and ardent pro-choicers certainly will; I will entertain all arguments, defending my position, challenging your assumptions and changing my mind if that seems warranted based on the best evidence presented.

But don't try to tell me I'm making "false accusations" based on "minimal research."