The Abortion Paradox: II Conception

The Abortion Paradox - Segment II

The Process of Abortion

********************************************

This is one of the more challenging issues that I have ‘ever’ attempted to discuss or debate. The problem is not the complexity but the political controversy and the level of emotion that is an intrinsic aspect of the arguments. The level of emotion is overwhelming. The level of reason is somewhat complicated and compromised by this abstraction that we know as emotion, and the political and philosophical pressures that are inevitably brought to bear are staggering and ofttimes devastating to those that even presume to question the contemporary and mainstream mindset.

Make no mistake about it. From my own personal perspective, there can be no greater threat to our species than from a concept that condones and authorizes the ability, the opportunity and the natural ‘right’ to dispose of another human being for virtually little or no reason at all. There are those that rationalize away the responsibility we should feel, by saying the zygote is nothing more than a mass of cells, and has no rights, but are we not all ‘just’ another pile of cells as well? Where do ‘we’ derive our own rights where it pertains to life? Are there any ‘natural’ rights that even exist, or can there only be political rights, inevitably decided by others. I think this may just be the crux of the argument. Is it a matter of society, and the collective, or is it a determination of the individual, in this case represented by the zygote? Within the collective, the individual is dwarfed, and has virtually no voice whatsoever. While within individualism, each and every voice can self-determine by their own abilities, and their own experiences, and their own morality. I find myself very much in the camp of the individual.

Rights are not something that exist only for ‘me’ or only for ‘you’. They are something, that if one promotes them, should demand that they be in force and available to every other single individual that exists, without exception. That means those you love, those you like, those you support, but conversely, for those as well that you do not support, and even dislike, to the point of hatred and those for which one holds nothing but animosity and contempt, or worse yet, apathy.

If and until we understand that a ‘freedom’, and a ‘right’ is something that is universal, and without inconsistencies, can we ever hope to find an environment where we can all exist in some semblance of peace and harmony? A place where we can find the possibility of some form of tolerance and justice and respect for those who have the right to their own system of beliefs, irrespective of whether we believe or agree to their interpretation of reality and appropriateness.

If not, then we will continue to pursue the same misguided activities that have resulted in the same unproductive outcomes. Is this what we want? Is this what we are trying to achieve? I would like to think that we are contemplating, at least somewhat, what we call the bigger picture, to a reality where we individually gain benefit but where everyone around us, even those we tend to disagree with, will find some modicum of peace and tranquility in the prosecution of their own lives. This is what I would desire, but is it too much to ask this from others as well? If I can find some expectation of not being coerced by others, I am certainly willing to grant them the same opportunities and benefits and ‘rights’ as I deem reasonable for myself, with the caveat that they also must accept and acknowledge the same responsibilities and obligations that I passionately accept for myself. Again, I ask, is that too much to ask? If so, we have an insurmountable and irrevocable problem that may not be solvable.

In any case, my intent is fairly focused and, hopefully, demonstrable. I wish to discuss and debate the issue of abortion that has been thrust upon us, as individuals and as a social community, over the last fifty years. I say that, acknowledging that the issue has been a perpetual ‘thorn’ in the side of philosophy, and politics, almost from the beginning of man as a thinking and philosophical being. As mentioned, the concept is fraught with philosophical misgivings and emotional knee-jerk reactions to any and every comment and ideological and philosophical perspective imaginable. I would like to think that somewhere in all of this chaos there is a desire, a presumption, that we will in time come to find reasonable conclusions on how to fix the problem, the paradox. I am not so sure if it is even possible, but I would like to offer a single personal perspective on the issue, and the reasons why it is important to come to rational conclusions, and act accordingly.

To that end, I would like to apologize profusely, in advance, for the suggestion of going back to school for the opportunity to embrace and comprehend the empirical evidence that currently exists about the issue of abortion. It is in the definitions and explanations of the issue ‘before’ the reality and inconvenience of the unwanted pregnancy where we may find value and substance. At some point, it is imperative that we determine and explore the actuality, accountability and responsibility of the result of those actions taken before we can even focus on the argument and the debate of the issue. I would like to digress for a moment (perhaps a little bit more than that) to do a review of the process of this thing called conception, which is invariably the precursor of the need for abortion itself.

I realize that this may be a bit dry, and I would hope and expect most individuals are already up to speed on what happens during conception, and the ramifications of the act itself, but then again, with the significant number of those that argue against the overwhelming evidence that already exists as to the process and the aftermath, it may be of value, and a benefit for all of us to go over, once again, the factual evidence of what happens during conception. I think it significant to contemplate the ramifications that become evident and relevant when it comes to the decisions and conclusions that are inherent in the contemplation of the need for an act such as abortion.

There are other installments forthcoming, talking about additional aspects of this issue, and we will talk about these things at the appropriate time, but I would suggest and implore every individual, to take the time and review the information, perhaps take the time to think about the perspective offered, and to re-evaluate the data and see if there is not something that may have been overlooked due to an emotional rush to judgment or a lack of understanding due to cultural, political, philosophical or ideological pressures. I think it is an important expectation that we are all on the same page, with the same information, as we listen to diverse perspectives. As we make an attempt to understand and come to conclusions that are extremely relevant to our own lives, as well as to the future of our society and even possibly our own species. I think it is time and effort well spent.

Everything that I intend to discuss, is in the context of philosophy, objectivism, reason, and for want of a better term, morality. These things are, or can be, different for each and every person, and I simply acknowledge that my opinions are simply that, my opinion, the perspective and deeply held beliefs of a single individual. I am passionate about these beliefs and feel confident that they are well founded, and yet that is something for every other individual to determine for themselves.

My comments are based on my own interpretations of reality and the world around me. Since I am an objectivist, in essence, many of my perspectives will be influenced or ‘flavored’ by the ideology and reflect, at least to some degree, that philosophical mindset. This is not an absolute by any means, and that should become evident at some point. If not, I can only apologize, for what I am not sure.

I will inevitably reference Ayn Rand and objectivism at times, and this is by intent. My investigations into issues such as abortion are based on my own personal philosophy, my own personal life experiences, and while it perhaps could be characterized as primarily objectivist, I think it more a mixture, a hybrid, of all the beliefs that I have been able to discern and investigate. But I readily and comfortably admit that objectivism was a fundamental influence in that philosophical development and evolution.

I interpret most of my work through the lens of an objectivist investigation, and I make many comparisons and correlations between my own philosophy and that of objectivism, and yet I make many disassociations and contrasts as well. I find myself at odds with Ayn Rand on the subject of conception and abortion, if not with her philosophy, which in intriguing. Is it not fascinating that the right to abortion is not even an aspect of objectivism? The ideology suggests and teaches that each and every individual is tasked with finding their own answers, and owning the consequences and ramifications due to those conclusions. I find that refreshing and more relevant to the evolution of personal philosophy than I have seen anywhere else. So, curiously, I find myself in direct conflict and contradiction with Rands’ own positions on this issue of abortion. If I had to give credit to anyone for my own perspective, it would have to be, at least indirectly, to Ayn Rand herself. I believe she would have none of it. Amusing, to say the least. I find the exercise both provocative and exhilarating in my quest for information and enlightenment. I hope you find that to be true as well.

**************************************



The Process of Conception

***************************

This is nothing more than biology 101, although they never went into this kind of detail when I was in school, and supposedly, the school system I attended was known as a well-respected and high-level product. But it was a religious and Christian-based school system, and the Catholics are known to not be so open-minded or ‘forgiving’ when it comes to matters biological and sexual, so I guess their aversion to many aspects of this conversation could be understandable. In any case, I was able to find my own way, and the knowledge was not inaccessible to me, although it was years before I was able to gain a legitimate overview of the whole picture, unbiased and in a reasoned manner. I even learned a bit more with this investigation, which only proved to confirm my prior positions, convictions that persist to this day, even more firmly and passionately than previously. We can never learn too much, and the desire should never leave our minds, or our souls.

As we all know, or should, conception comes about through the actions of a male and female member of our species. It can be ‘fabricated’ by artificial means in a laboratory, and for those individuals that are not ‘physically’ capable, it is an alternative method of creating new life in fundamentally the same method as is done physically in the normal sense of the concept. We will not be involved in the discussion of artificial insemination in this essay.

There are two conditions that are prerequisites to the act of conception. One is the spermatozoa that is contributed by the male of the species, and the other is the egg, or ovum, that is produced by the female. In the context of our current discussion, it is important to note that both of these items are what some might call ‘potential’ human beings, but in both cases, neither are able to initiate life without the presence and participation of the other. There are those, like Ayn Rand, that believe that the zygote produced during conception, to be something that is neither alive nor human. While I find that profoundly misinformed and ignorant, nonetheless, she has every ‘right’ to her own decisions and beliefs, no matter how fundamentally wrong they may be.

But I digress, as I am wont to do, over and over, and over again. The reality is, and science confirms this, without reservation, that the beginning of life is realized only at conception, and once the process begins, it results in another human being, actually from the moment of conception, but more visually at the physical birth, and many believe that is when ‘life’ begins. The facts belie this, since the process begins with the first duplication of the cell with the singular and unique DNA that was combined, and fused together, at that ‘specific’ moment of conception, and which determines the entire dance of life from conception forward, directing a sequence where all the stem cells are told exactly what to create, and when, such as skin and bones, spinal column and organs from heart to liver to kidney, to brain and toes and fingers. Do these things develop before the entity that is the embryo and fetus create them, or do they simply ‘pop’ into existence at the time of physical birth? Is this some mystical contemplation, or is there a ‘presence’ of factual evidence that says something different? The question is facetious, and the answer is irrefutable. It ‘all’ happens well before the actual physical birth, and begins from that same moment of conception. After that point, it is all inevitable, and without outside interference or influence, it will happen, without fail, and without question. I fail to see the conflict or the argument against the reality of what happens during this event, that we call conception.

A few ‘fun facts’ as Sheldon Cooper might say. The male will produce, on average, over a trillion spermatozoa in his lifetime. Each and every one is a singular and unique individual blueprint for a human being. With few exceptions, they will all die and never achieve their desired result, an offspring with that uniqueness. None of them will result in the creation of another human being unless they are able to impregnate a legitimate human female ovum, and fertilize the egg itself. This doesn’t happen often, but it is, to the best of my knowledge, notwithstanding the event that takes place in the laboratory, the only way that another human being can be created.

So too with the ovum. The female has almost two million eggs ‘in-storage’ when the zygote is but months old and still within the womb, and that number will be reduced to a few hundred thousand by the time of physical birth, and perhaps 500 will be processed in her lifetime, and released into the fallopian tubes to be possibly impregnated and fertilized at some point in the future. Each of these ‘individual’ ovum are singular and unique as well. None of the sperm or ovum produced by any human will be identical in any respect to any other. Truly unique. Truly individualistic. Ayn Rand should be impressed, but she was not. She does not believe that they are even human or alive, but if not, then from where does life and humanity spring, if not from this exceptional event we call conception?

What happens after this momentous, extraordinary and singular moment of conception? Well, I don’t know if we can say it is mundane, but we have a fairly specific idea of what happens next. It is a fascinating tableau that opens up before us as we attempt to perceive what happens with this new life, this zygote that has ‘just’ been created. To begin with, at the moment of conception, the single cell ovum, the egg, is just that, a single cell, but with a real and profound reality. This single cell, with the new fused DNA string of 23 chromosomes from each parent, prepares to start the process that will result in the creation of a new human being.

To truly comprehend what is happening, we need to exercise whatever ability we have to experience what some might call empathy. I simply call it a willingness to entertain the incomprehensible with an open mind, and speculate and contemplate what may be happening, whether it is a newly formed zygote that we envision, with a destiny of ‘just’ another example of a human being, or a troubled individual, enmeshed with a pregnancy that may, or may not, have been intended or expected, that is struggling with pressures and realities that are a challenge and an obstacle to progress, growth and philosophical evolution.

In either case, we can only guess what they are going through, and try to hypothesize what it is they are experiencing, and how we can comprehend and assist in their attempt to control and direct their own actions. The point here is that we are trying to understand not only a single individual at this point, but two distinct and human personalities, one supposedly already well developed, and the other at the beginning of a new existence, a new lifetime. Always remember that there are two lives at stake here, two destinies, and we are trying to determine the responsibilities of both.

In the case of an independent individual, we may indeed be able to interact and help them in their time of need. As for the zygote, they are far beyond our comprehension and ability to interact and give assistance. We can only help the host-mother in her physical and psychological challenges as time passes, and hope for an outcome that is beneficial to both her and her offspring. There is little we can do in a practical sense, but much we can do in an intellectual and cognitive sense. Again, in any case, the process has begun and it will take its course, notwithstanding some outside influence, which can only inflict its presence if it is a threat to the well being of the mother or of the embryo itself. There is not much we can do if the threat is the mother herself, irrespective of the wishes or desires of the zygote, if any exists at that time.

The process is inevitable. We need to explore what the zygote is going through, and attempt understanding of the reality. If we can do this, then perhaps we can come to some kind of conclusion, with other individuals, as to what constitutes the ‘right’ course of action. Is the choice moral or intellectual or philosophical in nature, or is it a matter of guilt or ignorance or irrational self-indulgence? These things do exist, you know. It is important that we can distinguish between the rights and benefits of all involved, as well as the threats that are insidious in the behaviour of many that claim the right of autonomy and that this ‘right’ is firmly, but ‘only’, on their side. We must question if that is, in fact, true, or should be. We need to return to our sojourn with the singularly unique and inimitable zygote companion.

There are three definable stages of gestation. The first is the germinal stage, which occurs during the first two weeks of existence. It begins with the insemination and fertilization of the female egg, normally a single event, but it can be more than one, and can be two or more unique individuals if multiple eggs are present and are fertilized, which is known as twins, or triplets, or even more, or it can be the split of a single egg into what is known as identical twins, a bit more rare, and even triplets, but without the influence of reproductive assistance, it is almost unheard of. Not really relevant in the context of our discussion, and yet intriguing nonetheless.

The zygote contains the 46 chromosomes that were fused during the process of fertilization, 23 from each of the parents, and all of the instructions on the creation and development of the ‘new’ human being are derived from those same chromosomes. The number 46 is intrinsically significant and relevant. It is ‘only’ a human being that has those 46 unique chromosomes (well not exactly, but for the sake of this discussion, we will go under that assumption). Every cell that is duplicated and used in the creation of the human being (also counted in the trillions at the time of physical birth) will contain those same 46 chromosomes. It is an irrefutable fact that this is true, and for any of this to happen, the zygote, the embryo, the fetus, will need to be alive, and it is inarguable that this is a member of the species known as humanity. I already fail to see the argument against this defenseless little cell struggling to survive in a somewhat hostile environment.

Everything about the embryo and the fetus that will develop over the next months will be determined by the information held within those chromosomes. The sex of the fetus, the color of the hair and eyes, all of the best characteristics, as well as many of the threats to its existence. Disease, proclivities that may not be in the best interests of the survival of the developing human being, perhaps mutations or undesired attributes. They all come from those same chromosomes, directly, and indirectly, from ancestors twice or twenty times removed. We are all an amalgam of those that have come before us, and if there is any choice in the decisions made, we cannot comprehend from where or what they may be. It is our objective to survive, and at this moment in time, not to question the why or why-not, but to struggle with the reality of being alive and human.

It is important to make note that the issue of whether this ‘protoplasm’, as Ayn Rand was wont to describe it (as well as many others), is doing nothing at all, or becoming more human by the minute, by the second, working tirelessly on creating whatever is deemed necessary within those chromosomes, to create and develop another example of a human being, which we all should know, is our own species. It has no choice in the matter, it cannot change and become a kitten or an eagle, or an insect, or a Maserati. Its destiny derives from its DNA. Only time will tell exactly what that means.

The zygote is not waiting for something to happen, or for some mystical concept of life or humanity to makes its presence known, to show up and ‘grant’ the entity its rights, replete with legal ‘stamps’ and authorizations. It is doing the only thing that it can do, and that is to continue the process of evolution and develop into the best human being it can be. Not a high bar at this point, that will come years later, but nonetheless, it is working as hard as it can with the abilities it has at the moment, and they are prodigious. It is at the genesis of its existence, and there is much that needs to be done, and our zygote is the only one able to direct the process.

As we speak, the zygote is travelling through the fallopian tube, I assume without the knowledge or awareness of itself (the zygote), but I have no proof of this, one way or the other. The single cell entity will accomplish an incredible transformation after a little more than a day, when it divides into two identical cells, each with an identical composition and with a full copy of the DNA contained in the nucleus of the initial cell. This is the first of a trillion duplications that will take place over the next 38 weeks or so. Did someone say that this entity is neither alive nor human? If so, can you please explain what is going on in there? It seems irrefutable, at least to me, that someone is hard at work trying to stay alive, and let evolution takes its course. If anything is an ‘absolute’ in this existence, it is the process that is taking place before our eyes, in a manner of speaking.

As the cells of the zygote continue to divide through mitosis and create even more duplicates, they soon join together to create what is known as a blastocyst, which is a grouping of cells into what is normally characterized as a ‘hollow ball of cells’, and this blastocyst at some point will embed itself into the uterine lining, all the while continuing to create even more duplicate cells. The outer cells of this hollow ball will in time become the placenta and the amniotic sac, while the inner cells will be tasked with transforming themselves into the inevitable embryo, and yes, this is an unquestioned eventuality. Why would it be doing this if it were not alive, and it was not fundamentally human? It arguably has a focus and an intent. Is it aware? While it is difficult to argue one way or the other, the reality seems to suggest that some form of intelligence is at work. Is there any information that refutes this perspective? None that I know of. Do other animals become human beings, or is this something singular? Is there any choice involved? If not, then does that not suggest that it is a fundamental trait of being human, this ability to create ‘human’ life?

This is all well settled science. This is not hypothesis and possibility. It is not what some would like to call ‘potential’, but it is reality, and I hear nothing but silence from those that are incapable and unwilling to refute the empirical and factual evidence that exists towards this end.

The zygote has ceased to exist with the fabrication of the blastocyst, and it is well on its way to becoming a full-fledged embryo at some point, somewhere around the twelfth day or so. And this chain of events ends the germinal stage. Act I is finished, while act II is now before us.

The next stage is the Embryonic Stage, or weeks 3 through 8, when any number of miraculous events begin to happen. Perhaps miraculous is not the right word, but it is difficult to not acknowledge that they are all singular in nature, even though the same process, with the same beginning, and the same development, and the same somewhat similar ending, has occurred billions of times throughout history, with little deviation as to result.

At this point in time, during the fifth week, all of the major organs of the body are beginning to form, and specifically the neural tube, which is inevitably the brain and spinal cord. The facial features are beginning to form, and the placenta finally becomes fully functional.

During week six, the heart muscle begins to develop (the myometrium) and soon afterward the heart begins to beat. Buds are forming on the body that will eventually be the arms and legs of the embryo.

As we enter week seven, the heart develops the atrium and ventricle chambers, and blood begins to flow through the major blood vessels. Again, there is no waiting for direction from the outside, no one has arrived with any documentation or instructions as to life or humanity, at least from what we know. There is no ‘potential’ that is waiting to be unleashed, that happened during the first moment of life at conception. Is there anyone that can reasonably argue that this object that we call an embryo does not represent the act of being alive, and does not represent the human species? It is incomprehensible that anyone could possibly even suggest that this is not a living, breathing example of a human individual, with all the component parts of our species, and even though they may not be able to communicate and interact with the rest of us, in a way that we can easily understand, can we simply dismiss ‘them’ as something of little or no value in the greater sense of existence? Do they deserve to be terminated on a selfish and random whim, a feeling of guilt or an uncomfortable pressure on our conscious? I find that difficult to accept.

As we enter the eighth week of existence, and the end of the second month, the brain continues to develop and brain wave activity has been recorded by scientists at this time, and who acknowledge that it may start well before this point. The lungs and kidneys are begin to form, as well as the digestive system. The hands and feet are also beginning to appear around this time. The blueprint inexorably moves forward with the creation process.

By the tenth week, most of the elements of the individual have been formed but will be maturing over the next thirty weeks. The embryo is now considered the fetus. It is not clear exactly what definitively constitutes a fetus, but it is now a matter of maturing all the parts, and the connection with the mother is now a ‘fait accompli’. The fetus is receiving nutrition and waste is being removed, although it seems that this has been happening all along, albeit in a more primitive form or process.

Specific details on the fetus are now making their presence known. The eyelids and the outer ears are being defined and are recognizable. The teeth are developing and the intestines are rotating, and finding their location within the body. Everything seems to know what to do, and when to do it. The fascination I experience has no equal. The kidneys begin to function and the embryo is actually able to urinate, although it is unclear what they expel, as they are imbibing nothing that needs to be processed. The umbilical cord is finally fully functional and blood vessels pass from the embryo through the cord to the placental villi. At this point, the embryo has now entered the fetal stage, it is now a legitimate fetus.

Over the next few weeks, from week 11 through 13, the process continues without cease. All the facial features are getting more detailed by the day, all the organs are fully formed but will continue to grow and develop and mature over the coming weeks. The spleen and liver are now making blood cells and platelets. The genitals are forming, and nails are appearing on the fingers and toes. The fetus is moving, and opening its hands and its mouth. The mother may or may not be feeling the movement.

We are now entering the second trimester, weeks fourteen and fifteen. Hair is beginning to appear on the body of the fetus, and the eyes are moving, although they will not open until 27 weeks. The fetus can hear sounds at this point.

Is there any question as to the legitimacy of this creature as living or human? I find it incredible that a large segment of people, even with the body of evidence that exists today, and the knowledge base that supports this evidence, remain adamant that this is something that is not alive, and is not human. They offer nothing to explain what exactly is happening, and acknowledge nothing in the way of the reasons for its existence or its ability to be anything ‘but’ alive and human.

If one truly believes such an eventuality, then there has to be some reasoned argument that can make ‘the’ point, or any point, as to the reality that they are trying to present to the rest of us. Is this a denial of reality, a refusal to admit that they may not have all the answers, and there may be more to this life and humanity argument than they had previously thought? Without such an eventuality, there can be no credibility given, no benefit of the doubt, no ability to discuss or debate or even to have a rational, respectful and civil conversation.

That is not going to resolve any of the conflicts that exist today over this highly controversial issue of abortion. I am willing to listen to contrary and diverse perspectives, but there has to be some level of an intellectual and philosophical exchange. If coercion is the only way that this can be resolved, we are in for a very long period of confrontation, and inevitable violence. It will be an environment where real and specific individuals, who cannot be dismissed as ‘unborn’ and ‘unliving’, will also lose their rights to life, liberty, and the right to happiness. This is not some game we are playing, although, at times, it seems that it may be so. It is not just a matter of opinion, but one of philosophy, morality, ethical behaviour, and integrity.

I thought that we had decided over a hundred and fifty years ago against slavery and the concept that one human being could have some right to ‘own’ another, and being able to do with them as they please, on a whim, was an illegitimate paradigm and should (rightly so) be termed inappropriate and inhuman and be restricted and interpreted as ‘taboo’. I am not interested in the debate on the legalities and existence of oppressive environments. I will leave these things to the emotional social processes that exist independently from intellectual and philosophical considerations. They should be a part of the discussion, but I find them more a distraction than anything resembling rational thought. I see no intrinsic distinction or difference in what we are discussing today. If alive and human, can it not reasonably be interpreted as slavery? If they indeed are not alive or human, then make the argument, and persuade the rest of us by presenting a paradigm where the evidence proves otherwise. One cannot simply profess something that cannot be verified. It is not a matter of personal and subjective opinion. It should be supported by credible, irrefutable, and unquestionable information and fact. It is not.

Does this argument ever stop? Will we ever be able to resolve this kind of issue? What will it take? Is it a matter of convenience or a matter of total capitulation? If it is a matter of intellectual and philosophical perspective, then there should be some way to navigate through the information and make the distinction between bias and empirical fact, but I see nothing of the kind even being attempted. It is a disturbing aspect to the human experience, and I don’t believe that I like it all, not one bit.

I realize just how ‘dry’ this presentation might be, but I think it intrinsically important for everyone to be at least peripherally on the same page. We cannot discuss and debate if we don’t fully comprehend what we are talking about. Is there anyone that does not believe this information that I am offering towards that understanding? Have I left out some significant data that negates my perspective? Is there some ‘other’ motivation as to why this conflict persists? It has nothing to do with religion and politics, that is more a distraction so we cannot focus on the true issues. It is a simple matter of right and wrong, more specifically a matter of morality, ethics, character and integrity. We can’t really speak of it, since we would then have to fully address the obvious realities of what is going on with the issue of abortion. I am woefully disappointed and disengaged with my own species. I find it impossible to understand how we can so callously terminate the existence of another human being, almost indiscernible from ourselves, without an intellectual and philosophical word in protest. I find it to be a reprehensible and fundamental ‘disconnect’ from reality, and if truly a part of the human condition, find no redeeming attributes in the species itself.

In any case, we need to finish the mundane so we can focus on the real issues, if that is even possible. Our fetus in now in the twenty-third or twenty-fourth week. Eyebrows and eyelashes are present, the intestines are actually ‘making’ meconium (stool) although I am not sure where it comes from or where it goes. The bone marrow is now manufacturing blood cells. Human blood cells, each one replete with the same DNA that was found in the original single cell of our zygote, where this whole process began around 170 days ago.

Is there any rational argument that this is a human being yet? What is it if not human? It is certainly alive, because it keeps making new ‘stuff’ every day, and it is this stuff that each and every one of us has in their own bodies, and we were formed in essentially the same way that this fetus was formed. There is no intrinsic difference. There is no logical or rational argument against it. It is all diversion and distraction? We have to ask ourselves, if this is true, then what is the real reason for this subterfuge? I have no recourse but to feel threatened, as well as embarrassed and ashamed to even be a part of the same species that would kill their own kind for no legitimate reason other than convenience or political expediency.

During the weeks 25 through 27 the fetus continues to evolve and grow. It is fidgety and is moving all the time. Its body is beginning to store fat and air sacs are now present in the lungs.

We move into the third trimester in week 28 and the eyelids open. The fetus can blink. It could probably breathe air if it had the chance. Over the next six weeks (30 to 36), the brain and nervous system are fully developed. The major organs are matured and working, but continue to grow to their full potential. It actually starts to breathe amniotic fluid into the lungs as ‘practice’ for what is soon to come. It is quickly gaining weight and it is instinctually moving and placing itself in the proper position to accommodate the coming birth.

It is still a matter of another month of growing and fully finishing the development of all of these items we have discussed to the fullest degree of maturity (under the circumstances) possible. The end result will be the delivery of the fetus to the outside world. It has been an arduous experience. Little does the poor thing know that it has just begun, and is not really over at all. But, at least for the time being, it will be released to its destiny, and it could not come too soon, as the mother would probably agree. So, it is time.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY !!

Our next segment will focus on the autonomy of the individual. The real challenge is to understand that there are 'TWO' individuals that need to be defined and explained. It is not an easy thing to talk about killing another human being, but if that is what you really want to do, it should be a matter of integrity and confidence to determine the reality of the paradigm you wish to participate in. It is not meant to be a matter of judgment, but an intense investigation into motivations, expectations, morality, ethics, and empathy, for both of the players, as well as the rest of us, who have a vested interest in the outcome. Nothing special, only the existence and the future of our species.