Arguments about changing the law on abortion have much in common with earlier arguments about (a) withholding treatment in some cases, such as very premature babies or the elderly with serious diseases or medical complications, and (b) turning off life support machines.

In earlier times doctors could be prosecuted for murder if they didn't do everything possible to maintain physical life, and the abortion laws were framed in ignorance of even elementary biology, including terms such as "whether the umbilical cord has been severed or not". Very few doctors were prosecuted - unless what would now be a perfectly legal abortion was followed by further medical intervention such as a hysterectomy.

Now that the laws relating to medical intervention at the end of life have been modified, including the right of people to refuse medical treatment, it seems only logical to consider things at the other end of life.

There is, of course, the problem of distinguishing between biological life and human life. Some people insist on giving even a single cell the same protection that a live human being has after birth, while other, equally fervent religious people, want to distinguish various stages throughout pregnancy.

Let me toss in a question.

The end of hunman life is now generally agreed to be the cessation of brain activity. Should we determine that the start of human life is the start of brain activity?

Salaam/Shalom/Eirene/Pax

Ken Smith August 2007