Abortion, blood, CSI

When you try to look up something on the Internet, you often end up with something entirely different. No wonder people call it the Web and search engines Spiders. Mixed with a bizzare reading list I come up with the following information.

In CSI season 6 episode 6 "Secret and Flies", Catherine Willows argued with a Dr. Emily Ryan on the presence of life in an embryo. Dr. Ryan works for Project SunFlower, a "pro-life" organization. They believe life begins when the egg is fertilized and that planting embryos into a mother's womb is an adoption nine months early. Willows strongly opposed to that idea and had an argument with Dr Ryan, the transcript of which can be found in Scott McClare's blog. The argument turned sour and, as usual, our good old supervisor Gil Grissom has something to say.

"I'm pro-choice. I am in favour of stem cell research. I'm sorry she felt harassed but my comments were in response to her statements," Catherine said.
"You should have cited Leviticus 17:11," quoting the Old Testament, he continued his lecture, "'the life of the flesh is in the blood.' Taken literally, life doesn't begin when sperm meets the egg, but 18 days later when the embryo is infused with blood."
"Is that your position?"
"If I were speaking with a woman who prefers theology to science, it's a position she'll find tough to refute."

This argument received quite some criticism on the net. Kelly Wait said "... the Biblical reference is about sacrifice and atonement, not about when life begins." Scott McClare said Willow's argument was "un-scientific". Was it as un-scientific as some have said? Did the CSI screen writers try to smear the image of pro-lifers? When I was drafting this post in April I firmly believed the answers were both "no". After downloading the episode and viewing again, I am no longer sure. I noticed for a fact that they tried to describe Dr Ryan as a irrational woman. It is only a side plot but perhaps the screen writers were themselves pro-choice.

But I am quite sure of one thing: science can only explain and predict phenomenons. It cannot be used to explain ethics and moral judgement. In one of my favourite blogs, Dr Crippen has described his problems with the morality behind abortion and believes it should be called pro-abortion not pro-choice. He does not like abortions, but he does not like lethal injections either. Yet he continues to sign those "wretched abortion forms". "It is a woman's right to control her own body," he wrote. There are also some articles on Ann Althouse's "blawg" about the Roe v. Wade case, the South Dakota legislation against abortion, and abortion in general.

Abortion is a delicate issue. At what stage do we call an embryo a life? At what stage is taking it from the mother's womb a murder? If we are to kill someone, what reason is good enough? I have listed others' views, but as always, I am afraid to define my own standpoint. I am afraid to expose my choice. It is wrong to provide ethical judgement using science, but it is equally wrong to explain life with politics, as they are trying in South Dakota.