Published in the June 1, 2005 Bucksworth
Biology 1 and Bible Basics
An AP story by newswriter Paul Elias (May 2005) asserts that "[President] Bush and such religious conservative groups as the Roman Catholic Church believe life begins at conception," and that this is why they "are offended by the research" of scientists who use human embryos to try to find cures for diseases like juvenile diabetes.
Mr. Elias is incorrect. The Roman Catholic Church and educated members of all Judeo-Christian religious organizations know better. They know that life doesn't "begin," it began long ago. According to the Bible, ALL life began when God created it, and ALL life has been passed on ever since, each species reproducing "after his kind" (Genesis 1:20-25, King James Version).
According to modern biology, life evolved very long ago, and, once it got started, organisms multiplied and reproduced "after their kinds," but with evolution over time which led to the creation of some new species and the extinction of some existing species. Human sperm are alive; human eggs are alive; and so are zygotes (fertilized eggs) and embryos. The question on abortion, stem cell research, cloning, and such has never been when life starts.
The legal debate is over when a potential human becomes sufficiently human to be a person under the law, with a right to life (but not to food, shelter, daycare, or a loving home).
The religious debate is about when the unfertilized egg becomes 'ensouled.' Now, considering how male-dominated the religious organizations are that are pushing the belief that the literal essence of humanity is the human soul and that 'ensouling' occurs at conception, their unconscious assumption is that the bearer of the soul must be the sperm that impregnates the egg. This neatly fits the "empty vessel" dogma.
If you reject the idea of the human soul, or believe that the soul, or "lifebreath," enters with the first breath as written in Genesis 2:7 (KJV), then the status of human zygotes, embryos, and fetuses is up for debate.
A zygote or embryo's being alive is not a big deal, biologically. Bacteria and cockroaches are alive, and roaches are more complex organisms than a fertilized egg. The great majority of Americans kill bacteria and cockroaches without qualm. Some religious organizations believe that cockroaches have souls, too, and there is support for this belief in the Bible (Ecclesiastes 3:19). Fortunately, they do not have enough political clout (yet) to make bug spray illegal. The crusade to make abortion and embryonic stem-cell research illegal is based on the HUMANITY of the living zygotes and embryos.
Speaking for God, Moses associates good with life, evil with death, and makes it clear that good means obedience: " ...I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, ... That thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and thou mayest obey his voice, ... for he is thy life, ..." (Deut. 30:19-20, KJV).
Modern-day Moses wannabes use "life" to mean human life only, which is either sloppy or a sneaky imposition of the narrow view that only human life counts as life. To frame the matter in terms of "life" when meaning only one of the many forms of life created by God allows conservative activists to use the phrase "Choose life" in a way that sounds religiously neutral for the biblically ignorant, while having a much larger religious meaning for those who know Bible scripture.
Can't newswriters spare a few words to specify "human life" when writing about this issue? Given the amazingly detailed knowledge of reporting staffs on sports, the STAR WARS saga, and the private lives of movie stars, there ought to be some writers who remember enough high school biology and Sunday school Bible basics to report intelligently on the "right to (HUMAN) life" debates.