No scientific agreement on when life begins

David Borck’s letter in the March 8 Your Views column, asserts that personhood begins at conception. But the definition of human life is more complicated than he allows. Mr. Borck seems to be saying that science, not religion, should be the guiding source. On this we agree, though his apparent conclusions on the science relating to this issue are inaccurate. In reality, there is no consensus across the scientific disciplines as to “personhood.” Nor is there consensus among the world’s 4,200+ religions. Nevertheless, the Alabama Supreme Court’s conference of personhood on frozen embryos was clearly based on religion, not science, and Mr. Borck seems OK with that.

The pro-life movement’s passion for trying to force unproven conservative religious dogma on all of society raises some questions for me. If the sanctity of life is so all encompassing, why aren’t those same people pushing just as hard for the establishment and funding of support systems for those babies who are born because their mothers are forced by law to carry a pregnancy to term, despite not being able to care for them? And why aren’t they advocating with equal vigor for the elimination of the death penalty across the country? Or for research and programs to address the thousands of deaths that occur from gun violence, lack of access to good medical care, and poverty? If life is so precious, why not be proactive about it at every level?

Those questions aside, it’s fine that some people believe, for whatever reason, that a human being is created at the exact moment of conception. It’s their right to do so, and to conduct their lives accordingly. Given the lack of broad consensus on the issue, however, it is clearly wrong to attempt to force that belief on the rest of society.

Bob Dohn

Hoffman Estates