Eggs Are People Too!

It’s an interesting time to ponder the meaning of life and death in the eyes of the law. On one hand, Christian conservatives increasingly seek to sacralize embryos from the moment of conception. On the other, the Supreme Court just heard a case that, among other things, considers the extent to which the corporeal death of a parent is really the “end of the line” with regard to “survivor” benefits for children conceived by artificial insemination from the frozen sperm of a deceased father. On one hand, Citizens United granted First Amendment rights to corporations that are identical to—and some would say exceed—those of natural persons; on the other, the Second Circuit recently ruled that individuals, but not corporations, can be sued for human rights abuses.

It’s interesting to consider the larger social anxieties at play when it comes to the “right to life” debates. Rick Santorum recently made a great show for personhood amendments, declaring, “Personhood is defined as an entity that is genetically human and alive.” But unfertilized eggs are “genetically human.” And sperm swim, so technically they’re “alive.” (Or, as an irreverent friend suggested: fellatio must therefore be a form of cannibalism.) If egg and sperm are sacralized even before they meet, it goes a long way to explaining why the evils of contraception are back on the table.

But if we push this figuration only a little, “conceptually,” life begins with DNA. Conceivably, every cell in our body is brimming with generative potential, particularly given new technologies of assisted reproduction. Santorum’s stance thus becomes a peculiar cross between the theological imperative to be fruitful and multiply and the fetishism of microbiological cellular promise.

Read on...

1 comment:

Jenna said...

it's not just the U.S. who is reopening the debate about personhood: conservative MP Stephen Woodworth is tabling a motion to examine subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada regarding when a fetus can be considered a human being (the Code says it's only at the moment of complete birth). It's obvious the intention is to re-open the abortion debate here in Canada, and ultimately limit women's reproductive freedom.

Woodworth's motion is here: http://www.stephenwoodworth.ca/canadas-400-year-old-definition-of-human-being/motion-312

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's response is here: http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/M-312.html