the mythico-aesthetic bump in the night

The opposite of the pro-life position on conception is not a feminist position. Feminism, qua feminism, doesn’t have a position on when life begins. Where and how: yes. When: no position.

I think it matters to understand the opposite of the pro-life position. It is the heart of eugenics.

The pro-life position can be unpacked; it includes several separate assertions. (1) life has a beginning; and (2) the beginning is non-arbitrary; and (3) the beginning is discernible; and (4) the beginning is fertilization; and (5) from fertilization forward there is a separate and independent human entity, with all relevant rights and privileges. Pro-lifers want to argue about #4. But the real disagreement is about #1.

Biology, unlike physics and chemistry, is allergic to bumps and bangs. In the study of biology, sharp edges get sanded off. This isn’t a matter of science, nor of religion; it’s a matter of taste. Biologists live with the underlying story of evolution, tiny changes adding up incrementally to something new – or newish, anyway. So the “moment” of fertilization seems exciting to pro-lifers, but habits of biology train observers to see the smooth continuum from arousal to coitus to the sperm races to fertilization to implantation to embryo to fetus to infant to toddler to adolescent to adult to senescence to fertilizer.

The most persuasive eugenicist of the 20^th century denied he was a eugenicist. That was E. O. Wilson, who taught biology at Harvard, and loved ants. Ant colonies are fascinating! But what he taught was that individual ants are devoid of meaning; to understand ant-ness, you have to understand the colony. Read Wilson! Or, perhaps, just recall a novel (and series) based on Wilson: “Ender’s Game.” In Wilson’s thought, genes matter, and the race or colony matters – but the individual is meaningless, devoid of meaning or significance. The individual carries genes from one generation of the race to the next generation. When people fuss about the individual ant (or human), that’s sweet, and it might serve some evolutionary purpose; but it’s actually just silly.

That’s the enemy.

Pro-lifers are addicted to a different mythico-aesthetic approach, which is related to science and related to religion, but really isn’t either one. The difference between us and eugenicists is that our imaginations are full of creative and decisive and explosive moments.