That is the only way of interpreting religious bigot Eugene Robinson’s statement.
So, I mean, the only thing I can figure out, Rachel, is that’s based on a wrong and frankly insane belief that a fertilized egg is a fully formed person and has personhood and that, you know, preventing the implantation of that egg is some-, is murder. I don’t, you know, it baffles me as to what other explanation there could be. They can be sincerely mad on this, on this subject, I think, and maybe they are.
If Eugene Robinson would like to tell us where human life actually begins, then we’re all ears. Hopefully he can find as clear-cut a milestone as the point when the distinct genetic code of the individual comes into being to mark the beginning of human life. Otherwise he’s merely spouting off an opinion that is at least as “insane” as the bright-line one that he declares to be “mad”.
Please note – I’m not getting into the question of ensoulment. We cannot prove anything one way or another there. But if we start excluding members of the species homo sapiens sapiens from the definition of human, I cannot help but recognize that this puts us on the slippery slope to Auschwitz.
And as for the “fully formed person” part of his argument – pro-lifers recognize that human beings go through an entire process of development. When does Robinson believe a person is “fully formed” and therefore worthy of rights and protection? Watching my ninth grade students struggle their way through puberty, I could make an argument that they are not yet “fully formed” – does that mean they are not persons under Mr. Robinson’s criteria?
And we won’t get into the question of those born with birth defects – though Robinson’s “fully formed” argument does lend itself well to arguments for the return of the Third Reich’s Aktion T4 program.