About the Author
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links

The implications of protecting all innocent human life

By Scott Tibbs, January 27, 2009

I have said on several occasions that life begins at fertilization - with the creation of a zygote. That is the only logical place to draw that line, when a full set of chromosomes are present in a very small human being that will, given time, nutrition and shelter, grow and develop through the various stages of life. I've been asked about the other implications of this, should it be implemented as public policy.

Should clones have rights?

Nothing about the statement that "life begins at fertilization" precludes rights for human clones. Human clones should have the same rights as anyone else from the point that the zygote is created. I am opposed to cloning, not because I am opposed to the concept itself but because it will not be perfect, mistakes will be made and people will be harmed. It is evil to conduct harmful experiments on human beings. It is perverse to kill newly-created clones because of "moral" and "ethical" implications of creating life through cloning.

Should a "birth certificate" be issued at the point of fertilization? Should citizenship be determined by location of fertilization?

Both should continue to be defined by place of birth, for the sake of simplicity and consistent record keeping. Having those two determined by place of birth is (at best) a minor side issue that has no bearing on the issue of abortion. What I am concerned with about is not legal documentation of citizenship for the unborn. What I am concerned with is making it illegal to kill unborn babies.

Should any miscarriage be reported as a suspicious death?

No, because natural spontaneous miscarriages happen all the time. It is estimated that 20 to 40 percent of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage, sometimes without the mother realizing she has lost her baby. Obviously, it would be extremely impractical, invasive and burdensome to investigate the cause of every miscarriage. Miscarriages are a part of nature. They are often a heart-rending and tragic part of nature, but a part of nature nonetheless. If there is reason to suspect that a miscarried baby was intentionally killed, then it would be reasonable for law enforcement would investigate.

God kills babies though miscarriage, so why is abortion wrong?

This is a favorite "argument" of some of the more immature and foolish abortion rights advocates. It is also stupid and completely lacking in logical thought. God "kills" people every day through cancer, AIDS, the flu, and so forth. So does this mean that drive by shootings are not an immoral thing? Does this mean it is OK to blow up a school? Unless someone can explain why a spontaneous natural miscarriage is somehow different from a death by cancer, AIDS, the flu, and so forth, that argument is meaningless.

The bottom line:

Questions about citizenship and investigating the cause of death are ultimately side issues intended to distract from the real issue: the fact that 50 million unborn children have been murdered by America's abortion industry since 1973. Nazi Germany killed roughly 6 million Jews (and millions of others) in the Holocaust, and we look back in shock and disgust. Yet, we have allowed five times that number to be killed in our medical facilities under the banner of "reproductive choice" and personal autonomy. This is a perverse hypocrisy.