Mindscan

"Defendant's ten," said Lopez, holding up a piece of past "A newspaper clipping for The Toronto Star from Tuesday 2 January 2001, commemorating this very fact."

The exhibit was accepted, and Professor Neruda went on: "So, setting aside the extremists I spoke of earlier, we generally accept that a person is a person by the time they are born. But there have been fascinating cases that have tested the flexibility of this particular rubicon for ascribing personhood."

"For instance?" asked Lopez.

"Department of Health and Human Services v. Maloney."

"What happened there?"

"Brenda Maloney was an emotionally unstable woman in the Bronx, New York, in 2016. She had been pregnant for the standard thirty-nine weeks, and was being wheeled into the delivery room, when she saw a steak knife sitting on a tray of food destined for another patient. She grabbed the knife and plunged it into her belly, killing her baby moments before it would have been born." Again, I saw jurors wince, and again Neruda went on. "Had Ms. Maloney committed murder?

Ultimately, the case was never tried, because Ms Maloney was found unfit to stand trial — but it did certainly galvanize public opinion. Support for the notion that an embryo did not become a person until at least birth waned considerably after that."

"In other words," said Lopez, "the hard-line pro-choice position — that until the baby was out of the body, it was not a person — became less tenable because of Maloney, correct?"

"That would certainly be my reading of the legal commentaries from that period, yes."

"You'd said there were only two absolutely clear points, cleanly and simply demarked by biological circumstances for establishing personhood: conception and birth, correct?"

"Correct."

"And Maloney — and other cases, I'm sure — made the birth marker not seem tenable in the eyes of most lawmakers and politicians, is that right?"

"Correct," said Neruda again. "Anything but conception or cutting the umbilical cord seems arbitrary to them. Even birth is arbitrary, when you can induce it with drugs, or perform a C-section.

"In fact, soon enough we'll doubtless have the ability to bring babies to term in artificial wombs. Take the typical sci-fi version of that: a fetus in a glass bottle full of liquid. The fetus has been growing for almost nine months. I take out a gun and shoot at the glass bottle. If my bullet hits the fetus, and goes through its heart, then I've performed an abortion, but if it misses the fetus, and just shatters the jar, spilling the baby out onto the tabletop, I've performed a delivery. It's very hard to draw these lines."

"Indeed," said Lopez. "And, in fact, weren't there legal attempts to define life beginning at a third point, namely implantation?"

"Yes, that's right," said Neruda. "But that was just as messy."

"Why?"

"Well, conception doesn't take place in the uterus, after all; the fertilized egg — to use the common parlance — normally moves down the fallopian tube into the uterus, then implants in the uterine wall. That event had sometimes been cited as the beginning of personhood, but it was rejected by the Supreme Court in Littler v.

Carvey."

"Why?"

"The march of science, Ms. Lopez. They couldn't do it then, and we haven't quite made it happen even yet, but we recognize, as I said before, that in principal it will be possible eventually to bring embryos to term in artificial wombs. The court didn't want to set up a standard that said that embryos brought to term in vitro were perforce not human. They were looking for a demarcation that was innate to the embryo."

"Well, then, given that the courts weren't happy with the birth standard, conception seems the obvious marker to choose, no? You said it was easy to measure."

"Oh, yes, indeed," said Neruda, nodding. "Prior to conception, no new organism exists with forty-six chromosomes — plus or minus one, as in Down or Turner syndrome. But as soon as conception occurs, a complete genetic blueprint for an entire person is created — the new person's sex is determined, and so on."

"So did the court rule in Littler v. Carvey that personhood was conferred at conception?"

Neruda shook her head. "They couldn't rule that — not without making millions of Americans into murderers."

Lopez tilted her head to one side. "How do you mean?"

Neruda took a deep breath, and let it out slowly. "The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that the phrase 'birth control' entered the language in 1914. But, of course, it's really a misnomer. We're not trying to control birth; we're looking to do something nine months earlier — prevent pregnancy! In fact, even though conception and birth are at opposite ends of the time span we're discussing, we use 'contraception' and 'birth control' as synonyms.