My Turn: Breakfast eggs aren't chicken
I enjoyed reading Dr. StormoGipson's recent "My Turn" column. It was well written with many interesting points.
However, his argument regarding life beginning before conception is misleading. The origin of "life" for the egg "that eventually became Rick Santorum" or Justin StormoGipson is irrelevant. The egg is no more human then the sperm and is not capable, in and of itself, of becoming human. It only contains half of the genetic code required to be a human. That is why, when we have eggs for breakfast, we don't say that we are eating chicken.
It is only at conception that the sperm and the egg combine to form the genetic code of a human being. Mark Twain's clever quote notwithstanding, both Mr. Santorum and Dr. StormoGipson know for sure that this is so. The difference is that one of them chooses to define this event as the beginning of a person's life and the other does not. If it were possible to set aside the political issues related to this question, this answer would not be so controversial.
Dr. StormoGipson does elucidate many implications from viewing life as beginning at conception. However, limiting the availability of birth control is not necessarily one of them. Although theoretically, "the pill" could prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, this does not occur in its actual use. As a pharmacist, I can tell you that the mechanism of action for the pill is to inhibit ovulation. It further acts to create an environment where fertilization of an egg is not possible, in cases where ovulation might occur.
Neither Mr. Santorum, nor any other presidential candidate, is interested in limiting the availability of birth control. The current controversy is from information, recently released, regarding the current administration's health care bill. It forces all employers, through mandated health insurance plans, to pay for birth control. The legislation does not allow for exemptions for organizations like the Catholic Church, who may have moral or religious objections. We would never force vegans to support beef for school lunch programs, or pass laws requiring the Amish to purchase automobile insurance. Why should we force Catholics, or those with similar convictions, to pay for birth control? The woman who desires government mandated birth control coverage has the option of not taking a job with an organization that is opposed to it.
The consequence of Mr. Santorum's belief about life that causes the most contention is his opposition to abortion. But the concern expressed by Dr. StormoGipson, I feel, is overstated. Even the most radical pro-life legislation proposed since Roe vs. Wade allowed abortions for cases where the mother's life was threatened. So even in the alleged "world" of Rick Santorum, Dr. StormoGipson's friend could easily have been born.
Her mother would have had the assurance that she could get a safe abortion "if the developing fetus became a threat to her life."
In the real world, any anti-abortion legislation faces intense opposition and is rarely passed. Our last pro-life president was barely able to get a measure passed prohibiting one type of gruesome late term abortion called partial birth abortion. In this procedure, all but the head of any wholly viable infant in its final weeks of gestation could be delivered. Then a sharp instrument was used to puncture the base of the skull so the brains could be sucked out. In cases like this, even if you question when life actually begins, the point where it ends is obvious.
Allen Ortmann is a pharmacist and Coeur d'Alene resident.