ABORTION A CASE FOR THE UNWANTED : The Fetus Is Life Itself : There’s no difference between the right to end a pregnancy and the right to own slaves--it’s all control over the life of another human.
In looking at abortion, the first question to ask is: What is this that grows within the woman? Is this human life? Or, when will it be? If it’s not human life, then a case can be made to permit abortion. If, however, this being is fully human, sexed, alive, complete, and intact from the first-cell stage, then a second human life exists and we have a collision of the rights of two humans.
So first let’s ask: Is this human life? The answer lies in books on biology, embryology and fetology (the study of the fetus in utero). In these sciences there is no disagreement on the facts of when human life begins. At the union of sperm and ovum there exists a living, single-celled, complete human organism. It is already male or female, alive and growing and human, as the 46 human chromosomes in the cell’s nucleus mark this microscopic being as a member of the human family. This is arguably the most complicated cell in the entire world, as it contains more information than could be contained in all of NASA’s computers.
At one week of life, this embryonic human attaches to the nutrient lining of the woman’s womb, and soon sends into her body a hormonal message that stops menstruation. About four days after the time when the woman’s period would have begun, the embryo’s heart begins to beat. At 40 days, brain waves can be recorded. By 10 weeks the structure of the body is completely formed and after 3 months all organ systems are functioning. To deny that fully human life begins at fertilization is to deny the known facts of fetal development and biological science.
Some argue that life existed in the sperm and the ovum. True, but we are not asking about generic life, but rather about this one unique individual’s human life, which begins at fertilization and ends at his or her death.
Some would measure the beginning of human life with a theological yardstick, speaking of soul, God and creation. In a secular state, however, we cannot use a religious belief to define when human life begins for the purpose of making laws that either protect or allow the destruction of that life.
Others use various philosophic definitions of when the fullness of humanness exists, such as cognition, self-consciousness, when love is exchanged, when the fetus is declared to be “humanized” or “socialized,” or by pinpointing certain biologic mileposts. Though these definitions are arrived at by intellectual processes, they cannot be scientifically proven. These definitions are also beliefs. In our culture, we should not impose either religious or philosophic beliefs on others. If one defines human life from the facts of natural science, then human life, complete and intact, begins at fertilization.
Because this is human life from fertilization, issues touching that life are civil and human rights issues. Nations make laws protecting such rights.
Now let us ask a second question. Should there be equal protection under the law for all living humans? Or should the law discriminate fatally against entire classes of humans, in this case against those still living in the womb?
Interestingly enough, our nation faced a similar situation once before--slavery. In 1857 the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott case that black humans were not legal persons before the law. They were the property of the slave owner, who could buy, sell or even kill them. Abolitionists’ protests were countered: “You find slavery morally offensive? Well, you don’t have to own a slave. But don’t force your morality on the owner, for he has the constitutional right to choose to own a slave.” In 1973 the court did it again. In Roe vs. Wade it ruled that unborn humans were not legal persons. They were the property of the owner (the mother), who could keep or kill. Pro-lifers objected, to hear the same response. “You find abortion morally offensive. Well, you don’t have to have one. But don’t force your morality on the owner (the woman), for she now has the constitutional right to choose--to kill.”
The Dred Scott decision discriminated by skin color; Roe vs. Wade discriminated by place of residence--the womb. Each is a civil rights outrage.
A woman has a right to her own body, but to say that the little passenger riding within her is part of her body is to utter a biologic absurdity.
But she does not want this child? Since when does anyone’s right to live depend upon someone else wanting them? Killing the unwanted is a monstrous evil.
A woman’s issue? Women make up the overwhelming majority of the pro-life movement, and opinion polls consistently show more opposition to abortion from females than from males.
So, should a woman have the right to choose? I have a right to free speech, but not to shout “fire” in a theater. A person’s right to anything stops when it injures or kills another living human.
No one should minimize the problems of pregnant women. With adequate counseling, informed consent, involvement of parents, husbands, and friends, we can help solve most of their problems, but sadly, never all of them.
The pivotal question is, should any civilized nation give to one citizen the absolute legal right to kill another to solve that first person’s personal problem? I think not. We must give her far more help, both privately and publicly than is available today. But, we simply cannot continue to solve her personal problems by allowing the ghastly violence of killing a tiny, innocent human.
