Fetal Life and Abortion:
Human Personhood at Conception
_____________________
Displayed Responses 2003
Displayed Responses Archives 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010
2003
December 18th: Conception, Yes! Implantation, No!
December 10th: Abortion's international agenda (reprinted from the "Friday Fax")
December 3rd: International discussion on legalized abortion is needed
November 25th: International problem: legalized abortion - international solution!
November20th: Awakening pro-life ethics worldwide
November 13th: Defending the partial-birth abortion ban
November 6th: More material for pro-life term papers
October 27th: Reasoning the PBA struggle
October 15th: Editorial: What the "Roe" court has been saying since 1973
October 8th: Partial-birth abortion reveals the truth
September 29th: The "spirit and letter" of "Roe" are in conflict
September 21st: Will partial-birth-abortion bring down Roe v. Wade?
September 9th: Roe's "right to privacy" vs. Griswold's "marital privacy"
September 2nd: The "Roe" Court misrepresented the law
August 24th: Did "Roe" deny personhood? NO!
August 19th: Historical perspective: abortion is its own worst enemy
August 7th: "Roe" decision: ethics or precedent?
August 1st: Direction of our culture under "Roe" and "Casey"
July 24th: Ethics overcome by unreality?
July 18th: Ethical dilemma: Unborn mother of a child?
July 11th: Nailing down the similarities between abortion rights "Roe" and gay rights "Lawrence"
July 3rd: Is the Supreme Court establishing an "artificial decency?"
June 25th: Common-decency is greater than "Roe!"
June 18th: Partial-birth abortion ban and Roe v. Wade are on a collision course
June 10th: Does the Fetus Have Rights?
May 24th: By insisting that babies can be killed, Roe is destroying itself
May 18th: The worst kind of child abuse
May 8th: More frequent uses of "unborn child" in the media
April 29th: OKC bombing conspirator Nichols may get 161st charge: murder of unborn child
April 24th: My paper says it is not right to kill unborn children
April 13th: Getting back to normal after Roe v. Wade
April 3rd: In-virto fertilization has problems also
March 27th: "Hands off the innocent!" says Alan Keyes
March 15th: Partial-birth is on its way out in the U.S.
March 6th: Surrendering to the consequences of moral bankruptcy
February 24th: What happened to the confrontation?
February 16th: STILL no human cloning!
February 5th: When does conception take place?
January 30th: International debate on human cloning
January 21st: Roe v. Wade in your neighborhood
January 14th: The demise of Roe v. Wade
January 6th: A human being is more than a "clone"
January 1st: Commentary on the Clonaid report
January 2nd: Why human clones are not likely
Question: Some physicians and scientists have taken to saying that human
life begins at implantation, not at conception (fertilization). This seems a
convenience in order to justify in vitro fertilization and fetal stem cell
research; if human life begins at implantation, then these cells are not
human beings yet, therefore it is not wrong to manipulate them, destroy
them, freeze them, or subject them to great risk in the laboratory.
One doctor I talked with looked at it philosophically. He believed he was
justified in his work at a fertility clinic because of the many, many
embryo losses that occur naturally -- how could this make sense, he argued,
for God to create so many human beings who would never live beyond a few
hours or days?
What would be some good scientific arguments to use when scientists try to
say that life begins at implantation?
Reply: A good argument against implantation as the beginning of the human
individual's life is that it ignores a major portion of the biologist's
definition of fertilization: the beginning of a new individual of the
same species as its parents. The biologist applies this concept equally
to turnips, rabbits and humans. It must be remembered, of course, that
it is not the biologist, but the philosopher who tells how that beginning
is accomplished in humans, resulting in a person and not just another
living thing. See Sections # 2, # 3 and #4 of our web site.
I agree with your perception that this "beginning" at implantation is an
invention of the abortion-minded and belongs only to the era of fetal
experimentation. However there are some legitimate questions, such those
pertaining to the origin of identical twins, that have posed questions,
but they are not pertinent here. Search "twins" on this web site.
An example of what you are suggesting occurred two years ago in Ireland.
Some of the Parliament, wishing to get around the troublesome matter of
"morning-after-pills," fetal experimentation and so forth, proposed to
change the definition of abortion as beginning only after implantation.
This would require a Constitutional amendment, since abortion is
prohibited (with the one exception of threatened suicide, which has never
been used as yet.) The ploy offered for accepting the amendment was the
repeal of that one exception. You can see that the amendment would have
legally established the beginning of the human individual's life at
implantation, rather than at conception. Fortunately the Irish people
awakened to the danger and defeated the amendment, but by only
one-percent of the votes. See "Displayed Responses" of Nov. Dec. and
Jan. of that time, at our web site. Search "Irish."
Your example of the doctor paints a sad picture of the declining sense of
logic, even in professional persons, in our day. To say that abortion or
fetal experimentation can't be all that bad, since some (even many?)
embryonic or fetal individuals, in the course of nature, die before
birth. Surely it matters, ethically and even emotionally, whether the
death is natural, or deliberately contrived by human intervention.
Finally, and this is significant to consider, if someone claims that
the life of a human individual begins at implantation, he or she ought to
be held to prove the claim. I have never heard such a proof offered.
On the other hand, as a biologist, I know that the new individual, even
from the one-cell (zygote) stage of his or her development, is in command
of the pregnancy. It is the embryonic human who burrows into the spongy
endometrial tissues of the uterus (implantation) and proceeds to build
its placenta, for efficient communication with the mother. Search
"hen's egg" on this web site, as an example of the independence of the
developing organism. To be said simply: The human individual doesn't
begin "growing-up" at implantation. He or she has already made a good
start at that life-long preoccupation.
Someone might be inclined to observe that the humanity and personhood of
the individual is no more manifest immediately after implantation than
before, in fact, no more than at fertilization. This observation would
be an argument against the human individual's beginning at implantation,
if the genetic structures (the chromosomes and their genes) are the
subject of observation. They are the same before and after implantation,
the same ones that had come into combination at fertilization. Neither at
fertilization nor at implantation can been seen a happy little schoolboy.
But he is there, filled with the capabilities to become a full-blown
schoolboy in his own time. It is those uniquely human capabilities that
are the clue; they can belong only to a human being. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org____________________
Editor's Note: The following message indicates a concerted, political effort to entrench legalized abortion throughout the world. We offer it as a sequence to our Displayed Response, December 3rd. We continue to encourage international, pro-life communication, by means of the Internet.
Secret Memos Reveal Worldwide Pro-Abortion Legal Strategy
The Friday Fax has acquired a number of internal memos produced
by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) that map out CRR's multi-year
strategy for establishing binding and enforceable international
reproductive rights laws, most notably girls' and women's right to
state-financed abortion on demand. The memos were written to summarize
the conclusions of strategic planning meetings held by CRR in late October,
and they explain in detail how the Center, along with its many
pro-abortion allies throughout the world, plans to expand international
laws well beyond their current scope and to impose these new laws
worldwide, even upon individual nations that do not explicitly assent to
the changes.
The memos appear to confirm long-standing fears of some legal
scholars that international negotiations on human rights laws are no
longer conducted in good faith, and that national sovereignty is
jeopardized by such negotiations.
In the memos, CRR repeatedly states that its "overarching goal is
to ensure that governments worldwide guarantee reproductive rights out of
an understanding that they are bound to do so." These rights would
include the broadest possible access to abortion, and the establishment of
abortion as an internationally recognized human right, but they are not
limited to abortion. CRR also speaks of the international community's
need to recognize the "inalienable nature" of what it calls "sexual rights."
These rights will in turn require new laws that "explicitly address the
legal and social subordination women face within their families,
marriages, communities and societies." They will also require the
establishment of "reproductive autonomy" for girls, which CRR describes
as access to all reproductive information and services, including abortion,
without parental notification or consent.
CRR hopes to achieve these goals through a multi-pronged
strategy. First, CRR will work to radically expand the interpretations of
already-accepted international rights, what CRR calls "hard norms," into
vehicles for its reproductive rights agenda. Thus, CRR claims to have
found, or "grounded," a right to abortion in the right to life, the right
to health, even the right to enjoy scientific progress. CRR favors this
approach because "there is a stealth quality to the work: we are
achieving incremental recognition of values without a huge amount of scrutiny from the opposition."
Second, CRR hopes to create new customary international laws,
what it calls "soft norms," that explicitly mention abortion and sexual
autonomy. According to CRR, if soft norms are repeated often enough, they
may become hard norms, and therefore binding on nations. Soft norms
accumulate in a host of international and regional settings, including
through the European Court of Human Rights and UN compliance committees.
Finally, CRR seeks a means to impose these new international laws
on recalcitrant nations. Thus, CRR will be "supporting efforts to
strengthen existing enforcement mechanisms, such as the campaign for the
International Criminal Court and the Optional Protocol to the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women."
The Friday Fax is reported and written by Douglas Sylva, C-FAM Vice
President.
Copyright - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute). Permission
granted for unlimited use. Credit required. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: Political and economic policies have become media for transmitting the “virus” of legalized abortion. We see this happening in the case of the European Union’s demand for reproductive health care (including destructive, fetal stem cell research and even abortion) from its member nations. The remedy here is political and economic resistance. However, the government of a perspective member nation might not see the hurtful consequences of submitting to an unethical demand. In that instance, the pro-life people of that nation must educate and motivate their government away from the “baited hook.” As with some of the other smaller member nations, for whom membership would be otherwise advantageous, Ireland is an example of a people educating their parliament on this matter. We wish them well in their courageous endeavor! A “copy-cat mentality” is also at work in spreading the “virus.” The remedy there is an international effort at educating the world on the long-range losses to the community and to the world that result from disregarding the fetal individual’s right to life and human dignity.
Comment: To see a person reach out to fill the needs of another is to witness something beautiful. And, to even a greater degree, when a group organizes to provide on-going assistance to a hurting, distant nation, we see people at their best. There is something good and necessary in our sympathy for one another within our human society. And there is something good and necessary in concern for the society itself.
We, instinctively, are uneasy in our awareness of starving children, even though they are half-way around the world from us. But there are other hurts, both at home and abroad, of which we might not be aware. They are subtle destroyers, requiring more than the vision of starving children to awaken our perception. They are slow moving, but persistent and destructive, invasions of our human culture. Growing disregard for the self-possession of the human individual, especially of those waiting to be born, is an obvious example.
Legalized abortion is proposed as a solution to a “problem” within a nation. Its influence, however, reaches beyond the nation, out into the rest of the world. Weaker nations tend to follow even the bad example of the stronger nations. (What’s good for the stronger nation is necessary for strengthening the weaker nation.) And, so, legalized abortion, in a brief time, has become an accepted modification of human culture. Within the past hundred years, abortion has been transformed from a criminal status to an approved necessity. The individual’s right to life, the long-time foundation of our social culture, is rapidly disappearing from our rightful armament of self-defense!
I am suggesting here the need for an international effort to overcome what has become an international mistake, the legalization of abortion. Each pro-life community must continue working among its own people, but also contribute to an exchange program of communication with the rest of the world. Despite some local differences our problems and our opportunities are the same. That is because we share human nature in common. We can understand human failings because we, ourselves, sometime, fail. And we know that human victories are possible and worthwhile, because we have experienced them in our own political lifetime. Unlike Alexander and Napoleon and Hitler, we would not be setting out to conquer the world. We would like only to restore its necessary, reasonable foundation of good order, so that our community of human beings can esteem and trust one another again.
We can learn from one another by sharing our successes and failures in striving to outlaw legalized abortion. And we can profit from one another’s attempts at offering positive assistance for distressful pregnancies, in place of legalized abortion. The U.S. could offer its experience in attacking partial-birth abortion, a difficult struggle, but promising in its reward. Other nations, even those not stained with the blood of the unborn, have strategies and encouragement to offer for the good of all. I can see the Internet as an appropriate medium for uniting us in our common interest. I am not suggesting that there should be a single “clearing house” to centralize information and action but, rather, that pro-life people throughout the world communicate with one another. Dialogue with the pro-choice people would be of value also.
“www.unbornperson.org” would be available for discussing such a project. Meanwhile, we will stand by for comments and questions, welcoming suggestions from the Pro-Choice as well as from the Pro-Life viewers of this site. Next week we will continue this proposal. E.R.
____________________
Editor’s Note: The next step in the process of enforcing the federal law prohibiting partial-birth abortion will begin on March 29th of next year. At that time there will be hearings by the three District Courts that have imposed injunctions against the recently enacted law. The injunctions will be opposed by the U.S. Justice Department, favoring the enactment of the U.S. Legislature.
Comment: The judicial process mentioned above should help to demonstrate the absurdity of legalized abortion, by bringing it out into the open for all to see. In previous comments, I have suggested that the problem facing the U.S. government and its people is not partial-birth abortion but, rather, the root cause of that atrocity, which is legalized abortion. It is Roe v. Wade, the abortion decision of 1973, which should be up for investigation.
One possible benefit from the contest over partial-birth abortion is the awakening awareness that the majority of the U.S. citizens are opposed to legalized abortion. Along with the peoples of other nations, we are ready to join hands to stem the legalization of attacks on our unborn population throughout the world. But we must begin our work, here at home.
At this moment the U.S. is in political turmoil over another absurdity, same-sex “marriage.” We had already been insulted by the supposed cloners of human beings and by the commercial scavengers of fetal stem-cells. Now it is time for the people of each nation and of the world to demand cessation of attempts to destroy our human heritage, our human dignity and, perhaps, our human race!
The United Nations has recognized the world-wide significance of protecting the human race against those who would profit from dismembering some of its membership. The European Union, after aggressively disregarding the human rights of the unborn, is beginning to soften its stance, wherever prospective member nations rebel against its abusive demands. Perhaps the only solution to the disintegration of a society is to have the majority stand up and defend the moral ground it stands upon. It should not be taken for granted that the opposition would respect that ground without a challenge.
I would welcome comments from our viewers about the foreseeable future of our country and of our world. Does History have a counterpart to what we are now experiencing, a continuing struggle to maintain our human dignity? If so, how can we profit from the past? I would suggest a study of the common denominator underlying many cultural struggles, the rebellion of the few against the good of the community. Is there any way to insure the fair and reasonably balanced activity of individuals with respect to the community, within the minimum of what is called human culture, the behavior that distinguishes us from the lesser animals? E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: The U.S. legislature is currently formulating a proposed ban against any and all commercialization of fetal humans and body-parts of fetal humans, including federal patents on procedures pertinent to such manipulations. Some other nations have banned the use of embryonic humans for stem-cell research, and many more have banned attempts at cloning humans. This form of government action indicates a deepening conviction that human life begins at conception (fertilization) and that the human individual, having been conceived, has a right to life and human dignity. It also indicates a serious concern for the preservation of our human society as formulated according to the ancient laws of nature.
Comment: Several troublesome factors have accumulated in our customs and culture, making it necessary to protect the defenseless, by law, against the predators in our society. In our time, explicit laws protecting the unborn humans, from the time of conception, must be added to their counterpart on behalf of humans already born.
One of these factors is the misguided notion that misuse of the few may be undertaken for the well-being of the many. Embryonic stem-cell research is an example of that. The driving force here is the emotional, wishful thinking of persons who are ill or at least sympathetic with others who suffer from popularized illnesses, such as Parkinson’s disease. An objective perception of moral priority is blanketed here by the perceived sufficiency of emotion.
Another factor is the potential for financial gain and public recognition. There is money in biotechnology, fed by the incessant longing for freedom from illness and for longevity. As for fame, being the first to accomplish a “breakthrough” in biological experimentation is a strong motivation, sometimes over-riding the moral sense of the experimenter and investors in his research.
Need to protect our unborn is on a high level of social consciousness, but it does not exist in isolation. Nor can the need be fully satisfied without reconstructing the moral fabric of our total society. Individual responsibility for oneself and accountability to others must be an accepted norm for all who have the use of reason. This would contra-indicate the use of debilitating drugs, dishonesty, etc. and would indicate gainful employment, dependability, etc. For all members of our society who are dependent for their survival on the help of others, such as the unborn, the children, the ill or handicapped, their families should be their first line of support. Whatever reasonable needs remain, the society should assist in their welfare, through charitable groups and government assistance.
At a time in history when abortion is legalized, when family influence is being challenged by incongruous groupings of people striving to be recognized as “married,” and when “tolerance” includes the intolerant, when “Me first!” and “Do your own thing!” are the norms of conduct, it will be difficult to legislate respect for the rights of the unborn. However, the attempt must be made. The candle of human decency must be kept aflame, or there will remain nothing but impenetrable darkness. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: Now that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban has become law in the U.S. and has been restrained against enforcement by the federal courts, where do we go from here?
Reply: The Justice Dept. of the U.S. will defend the recently enacted law through the federal Appellate Court system, eventually in the Supreme Court if necessary. The claims of the restricting federal courts will be examined and will be allowed to stand or will be rejected. It is interesting to note that the three restraining judges mentioned in the media, spent very little time after the plaintiffs had filed their complaints before rendering their decisions.
As for the objections proposed against the new law, the “undue burden” of “Casey” and the “too vague” of “Nebraska,” should prompt a review of those two decisions. I could think it reasonable to ask why the killing of the baby by a less brutal means should be considered an “undue burden” for the baby’s mother. Does not the great good of human decency demand great burdens on the part of all citizens. Or should we say that the good of human decency is too costly for us to maintain and, so, we can disregarded it? The nation has already spoken in favor of suffering this “burden,” rather than relinquishing their prerogative of demanding human decency.
And what does the Court mean by their phrase: “undue burden?” So far, it is not evident that the Court has given any clear and reasonable definition of what is involved in their expression. What is the measure of their applying it in so serious a matter as human decency?
Again, as in past writings, I am struck by the absurdity of discussing whether one manner of killing babies is better or worse than other ways of killing babies. What we should be discussing and affirming is that no manner of killing babies is good. All killing of babies, for those who cannot see such behavior as unreasonable and unfair, should be clearly prohibited by the laws of our human society, for all time and in every place!
As for the Court’s expression of “vagueness,” it would be an insult to the medical profession to apply it here. Even a non-professional bystander would know whether the baby is inside or outside of the mother’s body. That is the unique feature of this manner of killing. For all practical purposes, the child is outside the mother’s body, so much so that many obstetricians call partial-birth abortion infanticide.
Should any of the plaintiffs claim that the new law is unconstitutional by standards of Roe v. Wade, a new era of justice will be introduced into the debate. “Roe,” in the clear light of unbiased observation, that is, the people of the nation, will not withstand the honest search for truth and justice in that decision. Let the full process of law begin! E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: Because President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion ban, just yesterday, the media will be active on the subject of legalized abortion. Among areas of discussion will be the role of federal courts and the abortion decision known as Roe v. Wade. The special feature of what will become a prolonged discussion is the law against Partial-Birth Abortion and the proposed injunctions against its enforcement. We suggest that, on our web site, concerned citizens of the U.S. will find background materials to assist their participation in this debate over legalized abortion. For our pro-life neighbors in other countries, we suggest that they prepare themselves for similar encounters with legalized abortion in their own countries, sometimes profiting from our experiences in the U.S. By the same token, we would appreciate any helpful insights offered us by our pro-life neighbors, from any place in this world, which we share in common.
As you, our viewers, enter into these discussions, we invite you to use this web site as a resource of factual and speculative information. Although the Search facility on our site is somewhat limited, it could be useful in locating what you need. The External Links could assist you with an opportunity for further understanding the issues, and as a source of technical data. The text material, as indicated in the Table of Contents, centers on the humanity or personhood of the unborn from the time of conception The Displayed Responses, which are indexed by date and subject matter, cover the tangential, more recent problems against the human dignity of those waiting to be born, such as Partial-Birth Abortion, attempts at human cloning and fetal stem-cell research.
As of today, we offer a new External Link, http://www.voy.com/160745/7.html, to supply specific information on fetal development and, in contrast, methods of abortion. Also presented there in great detail will be found vexing problems, such as the marketing of embryonic body parts and the cooperation of some abortion providers in this atrocious business. As with other Links, this careful study of the issues will provide help for students writing academic papers on these subjects.
Again, as always, we welcome questions and comments pertinent to our subject-matter. Also, we are open to considering external links that would be helpful to our viewers. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's Note: Now that the U.S. is in the midst of the Partial-Birth Abortion debate, in fact, at the peak of its almost eight-year, bitter history, we might ask what is being demonstrated by the conflict. The legislature, after two previous attempts, has enacted a ban against the procedure. At the time of this writing, the ban requires only the President's signature to become law. The proponents of abortion have threatened to obtain an injunction against the enforcement of the new law, which would move the debate into the federal courts. Again, the question: Why the struggle, for and against this limitation of legalized abortion?
Comment: A few of the protesters against the ban still claim necessity for Partial-Birth Abortion. Others see the ban as an interference with legitimate medical practice. However, the predominant cry is that the ban will erode the woman's absolute control over her own destiny, with reference to terminating the life of her unborn baby. The probable erosion of Roe v. Wade is the subject of their fear. Their driving force in the struggle is to preserve the absolute grip on what they call "choice," which extends to the unimpeded destruction of their offspring.
It is interesting to note that the most visible and most vocal among the defenders of Partial-Birth Abortion are not protesting on their own behalf, but for a generic concept of "women." The concept is ambiguous, but it seems to place women outside of the human race and into a unique category whose rules are not compatible with human nature. Human beings must nurture their offspring; "women" may kill theirs! "Choice" has become a symbol of "woman-power," a possession that will not easily be relinquished. Roe v. Wade, which arbitrarily established that power in women, must allow no exceptions, lest the terrible force of that symbol be brought into question. It is probable that the banning of Partial-Birth Abortion could shatter that symbol, and "Roe" also, in the process of honest examination.
In this brief, and possibly biased, analysis, may I suggest that the above concept of "women-power" is not entertained by the majority of American women, as shown in many recent polls. The cover-story of the New York Times Magazine, of yesterday, Oct. 26th, gives us an insight into that reality. For the majority, the criterion of women's influence on modern society can be expressed in the simple and thoughtful, time-honored words: "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." Among these women are some who have tried "Women's Lib." and came away disenchanted. Others among these women are enthusiastic teen-agers, driven by the practicality and beauty of chastity. And many are young adults, striving to keep their own lives in good order so that they might impart that sense of harmony to the troubled world.
It takes two to make a struggle, or even a debate, so we must now look at the forces behind the Partial-Birth Abortion ban. The battle-ground here has been the state and federal legislatures. In our form of government the elected legislators reflect, for the most part, the thinking and the will of the people who elected them. What are their objections against Partial-Birth Abortion?
Some of the people oppose all legalized abortion. Some, even allowing for various exceptions, abhor this procedure because of its obvious brutality. Some hold to the opinion that the procedure is not abortion but, rather, infanticide. Some have an additional objection, a dislike for Roe v. Wade, and that, for various reasons. Some of these are convinced that "Roe" has no basis in the U.S. Constitution; others see how women are misled by what "Roe" offers. "Choice" is rarely beneficial to a desperate woman, and never beneficial to her unborn baby.
The up-coming phase of the struggle, in the courts, will give all of us , on both sides of the issue, an opportunity to ponder the conflicting claims and to evaluate the evidence. We are all party to this process since in the U.S. it is "We, the People" who are responsible for implementing the need for justice and decency in our society. At this web site we will welcome any questions or comments from our viewers, as we work together to attain a just outcome from these deliberations. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editorial: What the “Roe” court has been saying since 1973
The “Roe” court is saying to every pregnant woman in the U. S. that no state, and not even the father of her child, may interfere with her choice of killing her unborn baby. No time limit was imposed upon this dictum; it was to be the law of the land forever. Notice how carefully the majority of the Court removed themselves from the act of killing; only the mother would participate in that. Yet, very few of the fifty million abortions would have taken place, since 1973, unless the majority of the Court had provided their encouraging protection. Is there no guilt in that?
Many women who experience post-abortion syndrome deceived by the assurance of the Court’s protection. How could a governmental authority take it upon itself to protect something that is hurtful? Government is constituted to be protective of its people. And government should protect its people through the practice of truth and justice. The “Roe” court seems not to have risen to that level of concern.
In these spoken words, I am not the proverbial mouse squeaking at the mountain. There is something very real in the nature of things that enables an individual’s voice to be equal to the utterance of a crowd. That is because truth and justice are objective. Mere numbers are not applicable in deciding what is right and what is wrong. Nor does the aura of the Court dispense it from thoughtful and courteous criticism by anyone falling within the scope of its decisions. Should I be thirty years of age or younger, the utterance of the “Roe” court jeopardized my existence for the first nine months of my life. I would feel that I have a legitimate interest in criticizing their decision.
I conclude this editorial by placing a thought on the other side of the coin called “Roe:” E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
Mother and Child
A breath-taking sunset or a symphony of sound
Are fainter in beauty than what can be found
In the smile of a child.The highest of mountains or greenest of fields
Fall short of the beauty a mother's face yields
To the eyes of a child.May you be that child, in whose smile can be seen
And whose eyes can perceive, you know what I mean,
The beauty of God.____________________
As the day approaches for signing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban into law, we have a perplexing question to consider: “Is any abortion less fatal to the unborn baby than is Partial-Birth Abortion? Why, then, ban only the latter?
Reply: It is on record that some babies have survived attempted abortion, but none of these are survivors of Partial-Birth Abortion, which is always fatal. I assume that your perplexity is not overcome by this simple observation, so I will probe deeper. The proposed restriction of one form of abortion, and the toleration of other forms of abortion does not make sense. All forms of abortion are aimed at the death of the baby, and all unborn babies are equally human beings, regardless of gestational age.
The wide acceptance of a ban on Partial-Birth Abortion may not be driven as much by what it does to the baby, as by what it does to the observer of the “procedure.” It is true that the victim more advanced in gestation will suffer pain at the killing, whereas in very early gestation the victim is not yet capable of suffering pain. Ordinary people would feel revulsion in having to witness the suffering of the baby. Apart from that, may I suggest an opinion: Partial-Birth Abortion is being banned because it has enabled people, even the abortion-minded, to see the reality of abortion, the deliberate killing of an unmistakably human being.
I join you in your perplexity over those persons who see the human-ness of the victim of Partial-Birth Abortion but do not see the human-ness in all other victims of abortion. I would welcome all such persons to examine Section 2 of this web site, to consider whether or not personal, human life begins with conception.
“Seeing is believing” is a time-honored expression to indicate the persuasive force of sense experience. Through our modern instrumentation, the unborn can be seen quite convincingly in the latest version of the sonogram, long before birth. And the sciences of human embryology carry us beyond the point of gross observation, to the beginning of the human individual, at conception. The sciences of human reasoning go beyond the visual and supply the uniquely human dimension to what the eyes can see, the non-materiality of the human being. For thinking upon this unique dimension, I would welcome all our viewers to examine Section 4 of this web site to recognize in the unborn person what they recognize and prize in themselves as being human. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: The partial-birth abortion ban is in its final stages of enactment by the U.S. legislature. After enactment the law will meet its first challenge, a plea for an injunction against it, by the proponents of legalized abortion. It will be interesting to see whether Roe v. Wade is prepared to sustain that injunction.
Comment: The injunction plea must show that the ban violates the spirit and the wording of Roe v. Wade. Obviously, this would demand proof that partial-birth abortion is, indeed, abortion and not infanticide. The burden imposed upon the court would be to re-examine “Roe’s” definition of abortion. Does that definition, equivalent to “termination of pregnancy” specify acceptable methods, or impose limits on the manner, of accomplishing that “termination?”
The “Roe” court may be faulted for their disregard of the unborn’s right to life and for their neglect of the father’s right to protect his child’s life. And they may be faulted for their failure to have prescribed time limits beyond which the child may not be aborted (regardless of when his or her human life had begun.) So, also, they should be faulted for their blindness in not having specified limits to the manner of terminating the pregnancy.
Again, as I have often suggested in these writings, details such as these are important when we consider the thought-and-action process of human beings, especially in matters pertaining to the life and death of other human beings. I would not be dwelling on these details here, except to say that they must be considered by the court who will entertain the plea for the injunction mentioned above. And I say that these details should have been faced in the fabrication of the “Roe” decision. But however important such details may be, their importance pales in the face of the basic question of why the Court took it upon themselves to “legislate” the deaths of the unborn of our nation.
In a previous comment I suggested that a close examination of Roe v. Wade might be more than the decision can withstand. The concept of “its spirit” might well be found to be destructive of “its letter,” upon which the decision has been standing until now. Again, I ask: “What does the “Roe” court mean by ‘termination’ of pregnancy?” And, even more significant than that: “By what credentials does the Court assure legal protection to mothers who kill their unborn babies?”
When I speak of “the spirit” of “Roe” I suggest that its purpose was to give “freedom” to women for the sake of improving their lot in life, specifically, freedom to separate themselves from their pregnancies. One might rightfully wonder whether the Court was thinking that plunging a scissors into the brain of her child is encompassed by the freedom that they intended for the mother.
Regardless of what the “Roe” court might have been thinking, it is clear now that legalized abortion hurts women, as well as kills their babies. Post-Abortion Syndrome is a reality and it is in conflict with “the spirit” of “Roe,” the well-being of women. If the ban against partial-birth abortion were to be rejected by the Supreme Court, we will know that the Court is in contradiction with itself. Perhaps, for their own survival, they will put an end to “Roe.” E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: During this third week of September the U.S. Legislature is in the process of finalizing their ban against partial-birth abortion. Both houses have approved the ban, as they had done twice before, during the Clinton Administration. The Senate now wishes to add to the bill, a note of approval for Roe v. Wade A declaration of approval, though having no legal significance, is not acceptable to the House of Representatives.
Comment: Looking over the shoulders of the legislators, I see their activity as helpful for understanding the advocates of the “Roe” decision. Those who are seeking a declaration of approval for “Roe” have seen the political need to repudiate the barbaric practice of delivering a baby in order to kill it more easily, outside of its mother’s body. They know that most of the nation are opposed to partial-birth abortion. The passage of the ban would be a bitter defeat for them, but it would be only one battle in the total war, which could be won for them by the legislature’s approval of “Roe.”
The discussion also offers insight into the mentality of the legislators and other citizens who favor legalized abortion, except for this most atrocious form of its practice. It is acceptable to kill the unborn baby, but not in such a visible fashion, as in partial-birth abortion, because that is emotionally repulsive. It is possible that some of them reject this brutal manner of killing because of sympathy for the baby who suffers pain during the killing. If so, they should also reject the “saline procedure” in which the baby is slowly “eaten alive” by the concentrated salt solution, at a time in which the baby’s nervous system is already functioning acutely.
There was a time, in the midst of the long and sad history of legalized abortion, when some proposals were made to demand alleviation of pain with anesthesia, before killing the baby. The proposals were thought, by the abortion-minded, to be too bothersome and too expensive, and never were raised to the level of law.
As of this writing, the proposed declaration of approval for Roe v. Wade will be discarded and the bill banning partial-birth abortion will be ready for President Bush, who will promptly sign it into law. The new law is likely to be protested, as unconstitutional, in a final attempt to safeguard ‘Roe.” There could be some good coming from such a protest, the urgent need to examine “Roe” and to question its validity.
As I have suggested above, discussions of the legislature are necessary and, frequently, beneficial. However, the subject matter of these verbal exchanges rarely touch the core of the legalized abortion puzzle. There are key questions that are not being asked: “Why the killing?” Where did the “Roe” court find its authority to sanction the killing? And, “Who am I to permit the killing to go unchallenged?” E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: The Supreme Court reached far and wide to establish the concept of “privacy” that underlies their 1973, Roe v. Wade, decision. Their extensive hunting and its meager harvest inclines one to suspect that the foundation of their concept is less than sound. It is not reassuring that so many “bits and pieces” had to be brought into the process, in place of a clear-cut, Constitutional basis for their product.
Comment: Most significant among the precedents used in the “Roe” decision is “Griswold,” the 1968 decision which struck down the ban against the sale of contraceptives in Connecticut. It is this decision that created “the right to marital privacy.” Surprisingly, the “Roe” court found that “marital privacy” includes not only the freedom of married persons to purchase contraceptives but, also, on the mother’s part, the freedom to kill her unborn by abortion. In “Roe’s” expanded format, the privacy no longer needed to be designated as “marital.” “Right to privacy” would be sufficient. Now, even the unmarried mother was free to dispose of her baby, just as the unmarried, as well as the married, were free now to buy contraceptives in Connecticut.
Let us examine, briefly, the lack of logic displayed in this transition from contraceptives to abortion. And let us note the transition from “marital” and its significance in “Griswold” to its total non-significance in “Roe.” It is helpful here to use a distinction employed by logicians for the purpose of comparing two things, the difference between the univocal (identical or, of the same kind) and the analogous (similar, under some aspect.) In the old saying “Two heads are better than one.” we all know that the two heads are of the same kind, namely, the human’s seat of knowledge and self-government, as well as of bodily control. Neither one, nor the other, of the two heads could be a “head” of cabbage, or the “head” of a tack, or the “head” of a river.
In “Griswold” and in “Roe” there is a remote, common relationship of subject matter. They both concern themselves with the human reproductive faculty. However their difference is greater than this similarity. In one, conception is prevented from taking place; in the other, the product of conception, the child, is deliberately killed. Certainly the two cases are not the same. Ordinary logic would rightly suspect that the term “privacy” in these cases is used analogously and not univocally. Yet, the “Roe” court gives the same meaning to “privacy” as had been given, and approved, in “Griswold.”
In “Griswold” there is a plurality of persons, mutually consenting, and an institution, called marriage, in which the state has a legal interest. In “Roe” there is no legally significant institution (marriage and paternal rights are disregarded) and no admissibility of consent on the part of the child. The plurality of persons here, and there, is not one of equal standing. The “privacy” in “Griswold” is an institutional privacy; in “Roe,” it has become an individual privacy, limited to the mother. The privacy, in each case, is quite different from the other. In “Roe” even the marital condition, when applicable, is quite different. In “Roe” the child’s father, even though he is the husband of the child’s mother, has no legal standing to speak for the life of their child.
In “Griswold” there is the accepted privacy of the family bedroom. In “Roe” there is the public glare of the abortion chamber, encompassing the witness of the abortion practitioner, and the public recording of the transaction. Obviously the privacy is not the same in both instances.
Finally, in “Griswold,” the same two persons initiating an event will walk away from it. In “Roe,” one of the participants will not.
From the above consideration, the “marital privacy” of “Griswold” should never have become the “right of privacy” in “Roe.”
I must add that there are finer shades of meaning in the concepts of privacy as used by the “Roe” court. I suggest that the Court identifies “privacy” with autonomy, as though to suggest that disposing of the child is something that belongs for the mother to do, for which she is accountable to no one. Yet, the Court invokes no authority for their assumption that such autonomy exists. We would welcome comments from our viewers on this matter. It is my contention that those finer meanings do not outweigh the commonsense evaluation that the “privacy” of “Griswold” and the “privacy” of “Roe” are in no manner univocal, but merely analogous. It is, therefore, illogical for the Court to have interchanged the two “privacies” with one another. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: In their eagerness to legalize abortion, the “Roe” court disregarded some critical evidence against their position. The Court said that the states had criminalized abortion in order to protect the mother, not her unborn child. Yet, the documents of the American Medical Association of 1857, which prompted the enactment of those laws, states most clearly that AMA’s concern was to eliminate the “wanton killing” of the unborn. These documents were available to the Court.
Comment: The “Roe” court attempted to uphold their decision by minimizing historical opposition to abortion. The fact that the people of the several states had voiced their concern for the welfare of the unborn child had to be misconstrued with the fiction of the mother’s welfare. The purpose of this strategy is seen in the Court’s conclusion that abortion, in our day, needs no longer to be criminalized because modern medicine has eliminated its hurt to the mother.
This is a harsh criticism of the court that fabricated Roe v. Wade. The claims of justice, however, are often harsh, and a court of law, especially, must honor them. The lives of countless, defenseless “others” are at stake here, in a country that proclaims “justice and liberty for all!”
Again, as often before, I ask our viewers to consider the Court’s presumption of their competency, or the competency of any other body of human beings, including the total population of the world, to decide who is a human person and what is not a human being, for the purpose of killing some and preserving the others.
The “Roe” court speaks of the unborn as being “not a person, in the full sense.” Someone might interpret this as speaking of “legal personhood,” something recognized only at birth, sometimes called citizenship. Granted, the unborn is not that. But is there no problem if he or she is killed before enjoying the opportunity of being born, of being able to attain that status? Is that justice! Could it be extended to the justification of killing all persons in the U.S. who are not citizens, but merely visitors?
It is likely that the Court’s “not in the full sense” corresponds to their “potential human,” another of the Court’s nonsensical classifications of the unborn. This would be to deny the humanity of the unborn, by implication. Again, I ask our viewers: Who are they, this little group of human beings, to deny to the unborn what they, themselves, had enjoyed before they, themselves, were born!
Another declaration of the “Roe“ court tells us that the unborn have no “meaningful existence.” They did not explain what they meant by that expression, but would they admit that, in their own life-experiences, their lives before birth had no purpose? If so, they might begin to wonder where the sudden, newly found meaning of their existence came from, or to wonder whether it has come at all.
Whatever the Court intended by their ambiguous language, their professed uncertainty of who or what is being killed by abortion, renders their decision unjust. The pertinent, time-honored ethical principle states that, in case of doubt, in the face of possible injury to another person, action is not permitted. The expression “possible injury to another person” covers the possibility (which the Court admitted) that the unborn might be a human person. It follows, quite simply, that the “Roe” court should not have sanctioned the mother’s killing of her unborn child. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: On Aug. 21, 2003, the Mississippi Supreme Court, by a 6–2 decision, declared that any unborn child, at any age of gestation, is a person in the context of a wrongful death suit. In commenting on this decision, Nik Nikas, General Counsel for Americans United for Life, stated (www.LifeNews.com/state94.html) that Roe v. Wade has no application in this case, but only in cases of abortion. The Chief Justice of the court had also made that same observation. This decision should reinforce the federal position of prosecution for hurt to the unborn victim during an attack on the mother, as in the current Peterson case.
Comment: As I have indicated many times in these writings, the “Roe” court did not say that the unborn is not a person. They avoided any such clear pronouncement by claiming that nobody knows when the life of a human individual begins. By this strategy the Court excused themselves by claiming to be among the ignorant. Despite their declaration of ignorance concerning the fact, they endorsed the killing of the unborn individual, without resolving the doubt concerning his or her personhood. This behavior is a serious breach of ethical principle, acting in doubt, in the face of possible harm to another. Another subterfuge used by the Court is their use of expressions such as “potential human” when speaking of the abortion victim, an expression which has no counterpart in the real world of nature. See Section 3
It is doubly unfortunate that “Roe” has been given so much credibility. Justice is being wrenched out of shape by the misapplication of its already distorted findings. Even if “Roe” were acceptable in terms of justice, its presence should not deter a state from protecting its unborn, as indicated in the Editor’s announcement, above.
Whenever considering the Court’s mishandling of justice to the victim of abortion, I find myself asking: From what source of authority does the Court have any competence to determine who is, or who is not, a human being? If they do have the competence, why didn’t they use it? And, if they don’t, why did they act in their ignorance?
It is interesting that, in their brief and incomplete glance at history, the Court overlooked the millennia of peoples’ commonsense acceptance of the humanity of their unborn. The Court, rather, was looking only at the relatively few people who had killed their unborn by abortion. They used this figure to suggest that no one has ever known when the life of the human being begins, as though no one would have killed, if he or she had known. In our day, we know, yet we kill. The Court, itself, should have known that, even more than the rest of us. I would welcome any insight from our viewers on these questions. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: Will the hideousness of abortion become lost in the welter of more recent abuses against the human dignity of the unborn, such as fetal experimentation, attempts at cloning, attempts at reproduction with cultured, fetal ova, etc? It is our opinion that much embryonic and fetal abuse would be stopped if Roe v. Wade were abolished. Or, has the “point of no return” been crossed already?
Reply: The initial shock of horror and unbelief, in 1973, when abortion was legalized, took a long time to wear off from the consciences of most Americans. But, for those who compromised their moral judgment by becoming “tolerant” of the evil, the shock seems to have worn off more easily. Later, some of them experienced pangs of remorse after having tasted the “forbidden fruit,” in what has come to be known as post-abortion syndrome. Using this as an example, I would suggest that abortion is such an intensely intimate experience, that other disorders around her would not distract a woman from resolving never to let it happen again. Abortion is its own worst enemy and will eventually bring itself to a suicidal end.
It would be helpful if people, both women and men, would think ahead on the consequences of any hurtful use of the reproductive system. That would hasten the end of abortion. Meanwhile, the other abuses against the unborn human would have to be addressed by force of legislation, driven by the common good of the nation and of the world. When any one human is treated as less than human, the entire society suffers, because any one of the others could be the next victim of that same evaluation.
If Roe v. Wade were to disappear, the evil spell would weaken, since “Roe” is the mainstay of disregard for the human individual’s life. It is the nation’s first, official sanction whereby one individual may kill another within the United States. Obviously, what has followed, the manner of killing, whether by mutilation or fatal experimentation, has its roots embedded in “Roe.”
I have speculated previously about “the point of no return,” suggesting that we will survive as a human society only as long as a sufficient part of the membership are willing to oppose the hurtful influence of legalized abortion. The opposition must initiate a positive shift in the direction of individual responsibility, leading the nation back to its original premise, of being “one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.” E.R reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: Because of the possible resignation of one or more of the Supreme Court justices, the abortion decision, Roe v. Wade, is becoming a subject of renewed interest throughout the nation. In Section 9 of this web site, we offer several points of criticism against that decision. One of these is a matter of Ethics. Using the time-honored principle that prohibits acting while in doubt concerning possible harm resulting from the action, we fault the Court for sanctioning the killing of the unborn, after their admission that the unborn might be a human being. Why was this element of common, moral understanding not addressed in the deliberations of the “Roe” Court?
Reply: If I were to say that the Supreme Court is not interested in ethical principles I would be partially correct in my statement. The immediate concern of the Court is not with Ethics, the science of right and wrong. What interests them is what previous courts have decided, pertinent to their present case. These decisions are called “precedents.” They are the building blocks of any court’s current decision. A court seems to presume that precedents are ethically sound and need no moral examination. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the careless handling a precedent led to the absurd decision of its Court.
The precedent was “Griswold,” a decision that forbade the state of Connecticut to criminalize the sale of contraceptives. The Court had claimed infringement of what they called “marital privacy.” “Roe” borrowed this newly designed concept of “privacy” and legalized abortion as an extension of that right, to be called the “right to privacy.” There is no logical connection between “Griswold” and “Roe.” The only resemblance is in the reference to human reproduction, “Griswold” proclaiming freedom to prevent conception, and “Roe,” the freedom to kill the product of conception. Under any other pretense there is no justification for attempting to validate “Roe” by invoking “Griswold.” In objective reality, the two cases involve non-identical subject matters, and circumstances that are not similar. See Section 9.
Getting back to the ethical principle of “not acting in doubt,” the Court professed ignorance about the beginning of a human individual’s life. Yet, in the face of that admission, they declared the mother’s “right” to kill her unborn, without interference from anyone, even from the father of the unborn. In plain language, though implicitly, the Court is saying to the mother: Human or not, you may proceed with the killing. Remember, though, that it is your decision, not ours. This phrasing of the scenario, however, would not excuse the Court from its complicity in the killing. They are providing the availability of occasion and the misleading atmosphere conducive to the killing.
The “Roe” court, not finding a precedent for establishing the beginning of a human individual’s life, should not have excused themselves from the task of formulating that missing element. Evidently the question had never been encountered previously but because it is an essential element in the “Roe” court’s deliberations, it was the duty of the Court to face the problem. They should have either established the factual definition of the beginning of a human individual’s life, or should have placed their decision “on hold” until the fact would have been ascertained.
After all, that’s the very question that distinguishes Roe v. Wade from any case which had preceded it: May a woman kill her unborn? The Court asked: Is the unborn a human being or not? Admitting that they could not answer their own question, the Court should have said, simply: Since we don’t know whether the unborn is human or not, we must presume the good of life and abstain from the possible evil of death. In other words: The mother may not kill her unborn, because, in so doing, she may be killing a fellow human being.
If the Court had been ethically alert, Roe v. Wade would not have become an instrument of death. We should examine “Roe” and revise it in light of the moral principles of right and wrong, along with the wealth of new, scientific knowledge concerning the beginning of a human being’s life, acquired during the thirty years since the drafting of the “Roe” decision. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: In a short interval of time the U.S. has transformed itself from being a nurturing nation, the pioneering years, into a killing nation, the years of Roe. V. Wade.
With government approval we deliberately kill our young, by legalized abortion. No other species in the Animal Kingdom kill their own offspring. We have reduced ourselves to a level below the brute. Yet, with our military, we spread ourselves around the world, “saving” lives for other nations. How long can this schizophrenia continue before we will have reached the “point of no return?”
Reply: Living in the midst of contradictions that are “tolerated” is a form of moral blindness, a refusal to face the truth. Helping one’s neighbors is good. Killing one’s own people is bad. To accept the good, without rejecting the bad, is a breach of integrity, whether on the part of an individual or by a nation.
How long can we live with contradictions without losing touch with reality? Without doubt there is a “point of no return,” at which the distinction between good and evil has been either denied or merely forgotten and at which we disregard our accountability. In the case of blindly accepting abortion as nothing other than a bothersome incident, best forgotten, there are still some “consequences” that tend to preserve the reality. Post-abortion syndrome is one of them. It is deeply embedded in the nature of a woman to remember the one-time resident of her womb, especially one whom she did not welcome there. It is the not-welcoming that stands out most clearly in her memory, because it is something “felt” and not just remembered.
I think it is fair to say that for some individuals and some organizations, the “point of no return” has already been reached and, in some cases, far exceeded. The taste of blood is no longer repulsive to them. They would vehemently repel any attempt to restore personal dignity to human life, except their own, of course. Having been encouraged to choose according to their fancy, the “Do your own thing!” crowd is beyond helping. By their own slogan, they have severed the channels to outside help.
But they are not the whole of our society. There are some of our citizens who are dedicated to justice and good order in our country, who represent our better interests as a people. Your question, then, is whether and, if so, when might this segment of our people stand up and reestablish our claim to our human dignity and a culture of life for our nation? Fortunately they are already at work, like leaven in the dough, cultivating moral health in our youngsters, assisting those who are experiencing distressful pregnancies, and guiding back to health those who had been devastated by having made the wrong choice with respect to their pregnancies. These are the pro-lifers of our nation who, with their counterparts around the world, are encouraging responsible parenthood, with happy children and gracious family living.
Is the 1973 Supreme Court’s decision, Roe v. Wade, responsible for the nation’s degradation? Not totally! If the nation’s moral climate had not already degenerated, that decision could not have been rendered. However, the decision codified and gave the stamp of approval to the degradation already in existence, and to that which has multiplied after, and because of it. The question for each of us now is to ask: “What can I do to hasten our return from the culture of death to the culture of life? E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: On our web site we talk about the ethics of abortion. Our viewers give us good points for trying to put some sense into things. Some wonder, though, whether right and wrong have a place anymore. Some feel that too much of the world has been changed in recent times, so that now people don’t care about what they do to themselves or to others. They feel that our world has become unrealistic. One viewer wondered whether it is the Internet that makes us feel as though we are fish out of the water, as we flounder in the rare atmosphere of unguided technology. It has been pointed out that some nations are starving for the necessities of life; others are engaged in high-power killing of their own people or their neighbors. In the U.S. multi-million dollar salaries are available for athletes, businesses are getting too big to be manageable, and anything called science, especially if it can be called “cutting-edge” science, is running out of control. Some are asking whether there is any incentive left for being hopeful, when even unborn human lives are the target of such mindless activity. One summarized a concern by saying: “If anybody thinks something might work and if there is money for its promotion, does anyone stop to think about its ethical consequences?”
Reply: These concerns remind me of that old expression: “You’re getting too big for your britches!” It might be true that we are over-expanding too rapidly and in too many areas for the society to remain coherent. One untried and untested thing is piled upon others similarly unsuited for building the firm foundation of a stable society. The guidance of true and unselfish thinking, sometimes called the application of ethical principles, would help to eradicate the confusing behavior cited above. Effective application, of course, requires not only truth but also good will among the participants.
Whether there is a basis for optimism concerning the immediate future of our society, I suggest an ancient observation, paraphrased in these words: The behavior of a community is a reflection of the behavior of its individuals. Using this as a measuring rod, we might look at the rising or declining numbers of those individuals whose slogans are: “Me, first!” and “Do your own thing!” One encouraging item in the area of legalized abortion is the increasing numbers of teen-agers who oppose promiscuity by living happy lives under the guidance of chastity.
History demonstrates the rise and fall of human excellence by using the pendulum. When it can swing no farther, the pendulum changes its direction. In human affairs, the extremes of the swing are crass materialism and sublime spirituality. As a society we are always heading toward one or the other, but never satisfied to remain at the goal, once we had attained it. In the ideal case, the pendulum will always strive to return to its point of equilibrium. And that is how it has been designed to function in its gravitational field. In human affairs, however, we must allow for a sufficiently changed environment to modify the mechanics of the “pendulum” and admit that the traditional extreme could become a “point of no return.” E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: In the midst of an era of experimenting with human reproduction, we feel that reasonable guidelines are either absent or are frequently being disregarded. We offer here a review of some pertinent principles of Ethics as applied to the most recent problem, the use of ovaries taken from aborted babies:
Comment: It has been recently reported that ova are being removed from the ovaries of babies killed by abortion. These ova, from an early stage of their formation, are being artificially cultured and, when mature, are to be used for the production of babies by “in vitro fertilization.” It is presumed that some of these embryonic humans are to be implanted in cooperating women, in localities where this procedure will not have been prohibited by law. Some of them, however, would be scheduled for further experimentation, as in the use of their stem cells, supposedly for curing various diseases throughout the world. In some countries, the harvesting of fetal stem cells is prohibited by law. That is because the extraction of those cells kills the embryonic human from whom they were taken.
As a most generalized principle of Ethics, human individuals must be treated with full exercise of rights proper to their human nature. A human individual, so far as other humans are concerned, is his or her own person and must be respected as such. In our day of experimentation, it is reasonable to insist that this respect for the rights of the individual must be extended to everything pertinent to his or her origin and consequent physical formation. Other, more specialized, principles guard the individual’s autonomy, such as the limitation of experimenting upon the individual, so that the experiment is undertaken for his or her benefit and not merely for the benefit of others. In this area of respect for the individual’s autonomy is the condition of informed consent on the part of the individual or of another person having the right of proxy.
As to the origin of the individual and methods of his or her formation, it is reasonable to say that “in vitro fertilization” imposes some risks upon the individual. Note here especially the artificial obtaining and handling of the reproductive cells and the exposure of the embryo to artificial factors of environment, such as freezing throughout storage, whenever that occurs. There is risk to individuals, also, in the production of several embryonic humans, some of whom will be discarded in the process, or who will die after implantation. As for informed consent on the part of the proxy, in this case, the parents, the intention is likely to suit the proxy, rather than to represent the good of the individuals conceived by the process.
With reference to the use of ova from the aborted, fetal person, the natural process of human reproduction is trivialized. Should the process ever become successful, familial relationships, one of nature’s finer institutions, will have become disordered and, perhaps, detrimental to the individual. Experimenters in human reproduction are likely to rest with the physical aspects of their mischief and to be unmindful of the emotional and social damage introduced into the life of the individual they have produced.
It should go without saying that “tinkering” with human reproduction is a misuse, not only of human individuals, but also of the society. Its unchallenged presence in our midst is an admission of moral negligence on part of the public. Human reproduction is the current source of membership in the society. “Tinkering” with human reproduction is a “poisoning of the well” from which all of us must drink.
If I may add another perspective to the problem, it would be to suggest our limited moral freedom to interfere with the fundamental workings of nature. This is not only because the Author of nature is God, but because of our obligation toward our fellow creatures, expressed in the ancient Hippocratic oath: “Do no harm!” E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: Your correspondent hit the nail right on the head, because the Supreme Court, just last week, gave the legal okay for the homosexual lifestyle. That was Lawrence vs. Texas. That decision took away states’ rights, just like the abortion decision did. Without asking the people the court has changed our culture into something that is not good for us, just like abortion. Do you think government approval of abortion will ever be wiped out, now that the court is stonewalling it with other things of the same kind?
Reply: Your concern has a basis in history. Tyrants have changed cultures, but peoples have survived under suppression and, in some instances, regained their status of human dignity. In fact, the more radical the change, the greater will be the likelihood that recovery from the tyranny will follow. That is because sudden and obvious change can awaken a slumbering society. Since people can stand only so much abuse, they will revolt as soon as the burden becomes too heavy. Then they are willing to wield pitchforks in the face of cannons, as in the French Revolution. It is only when people are gradually moved into change, with quiet “stonewalling,” as you call it, and do not rise up to defend their human dignity, that the nation eventually collapses in ruin. Ancient, pagan Rome could serve as example of an imposed culture, submissively endured, until its own destruction.
Some of the effects of “Lawrence” are the same as those of “Roe,” such as the loss of states’ rights and the degradation of human dignity, as you have noted. Innocent humans are being deprived of their lives and their right to life, because “Roe” protects this choice of the mother. In “Lawrence,” society is the victim. Society is cheapened by the Court’s insensitivity to a standard of social environment instinctively needed by the people.
And there is another similarity. With abortion, the victim is killed. Nothing is more complete or final than that? Not quite! Looking at “Roe” as a victory, the victors immediately demanded that the rest of the society should pay for their abortions, through the use of public funds. Their demand was posed in the guise of justice: The poor should have the same “health care” as the wealthy. With approval of homosexual activity, the consequences to society are not finished. They have just begun to be multiplied. It will be interesting to see what demands on the public will be made on behalf of those who are celebrating Lawrence v. Texas today.
If I may add something of my own concern, I would suggest that the saddest part of this recent decision is its deceptive promise of happiness for those who subscribe to it, especially for the many who have adopted the homosexual lifestyle as a preference. “Roe” had promised happiness for those who felt free, because of that decision, to kill their babies. Post-abortion syndrome has proved the promise to be false and misleading.
The homosexual lifestyle is not a substitute for marriage. It is not even the same kind of thing. It should be kept in mind that self-imposed addiction to the use of an imitation cannot produce the desired effects belonging to the real thing. Pornography is an example of that. In the course of time there might be an awakening and the imitation will be rejected as deceptive. The entertaining TV commercial, comparing butter with margarine, fits here: “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature!” E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: In your last posting, E.R. speaks about common-decency and how the acceptance of partial-birth abortion would infringe on the dignity of a society, as unfitting to the human culture. I agree with that thinking. It is not only that we are human; it is that we know that we are human and have to live up to what we are. I would place legalized abortion in the same class as legalized homosexual behavior, if that ever comes about. Abortion doesn’t fit into the pattern of what has always been known by the majority of people as responsible, human conduct. It is a contradiction of reality and, because of that, pertains to the realm of artificiality and falsehood.
Reply: There is a long-standing tradition of people “setting the standard” of acceptable behavior for membership within the society of human beings. Sometimes the code of conduct has been written into law, but there is a deeper standard in the gut-feeling of each person about what it is to be human, and to be different from the lesser animals. In this common understanding of ourselves, abortion is seen as an indecency. In the original meaning of indecency, abortion does not “fit in,” as you have indicated, with our individual and social human nature.
It is interesting to note that much of the world’s literature focuses on the uniquely human characteristic of an individual, and on the struggle to preserve that aspect of his or her dignity as a person. In reading the literature we understand the person, because we understand ourselves. This exemplifies our common-ness, in fact, as well as in perception. History is a record of people striving to maintain their moral integrity.
Under ideal circumstances we could trust the words of even a stranger. Why? Because people are expected to be truthful. We have a right to the truth; otherwise the society crumbles. If dishonesty were to be “tolerated,” social and commercial mingling would become intolerable. And this cause-and-effect relationship is not of human making; it belongs to the very nature of things.
You seem to be saying that legalized homosexual practice would be unfitting to human society because it would be a falsehood to use the reproductive faculties for something other than reproduction. Your observation throws some light on the indecency of legalized abortion, the misuse of the product of reproduction, namely the killing, rather than the nurturing, of the child. The insult to the society is the legalization of such behavior. The question here is whether falsehood should be imposed upon a society that knows dishonesty to be destructive of its foundation. For government to sanction abortion is to falsify the harm accruing to both the baby and the mother, by attempting to label abortion as something good, and worthy of Constitutional protection. By attempting to protect the “good” of legalized abortion with a “law” that was invented for this occasion, the Court displays its dishonesty. It is against such deceptive violence to common-decency that the people are instinctively rebelling.
Truth, which is to know things as they are, is sometimes forfeited in favor of a court’s ambition to “mould” society according to their own vision. Using your example from homosexual practice, the clamor for same-sex “marriage” is a demand upon the society to accept, or at least tolerate, a falsehood. There is no homosexual union that can truthfully be called marriage. Marriage, in word and in fact, is a unique reality, incapable of attainment by such a union. To “grant” marriage benefits to such a union is an added falsehood. Marriage benefits are rightly recognized by society because of the contributions made by the family to the society, namely the reproduction and nurture of children. In the case of legalized abortion, the added dishonesty is found in the deprivation of persons and their talents, taken away from the society by the Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.
If I may add a closing note, let me suggest that we, as a people, must begin to care for ourselves. Erosion of human dignity has been taking place. The recent fad of “political correctness” has silenced our native instinct toward self-preservation through moral integrity. An artificial, man-made standard has been placed in substitution for the natural formula of truth and fairness, as the norm of human behavior. Truth and fairness have been derailed by the false notion of “toleration.” Toleration of what is evil has become a “virtue,” and the evil has become a “good.”
The old saying is true: “One thing leads to another!” Should we not pause to ask: “Where do we go from here?” You may refer to our Theme Verse to help you with your answer. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's Note: With the signing of the partial-birth abortion ban, the U.S. legislature will appear to have set itself against the abortion decision of 1973. Even if this procedure is called abortion and is currently sanctioned by the decision of the Court, the majority of the nation's people do not tolerate it as acceptable in practice. It may be questioned whether "Roe" can demand acceptance of this manner of killing the unborn. Abortionists have pledged themselves to fight the federal ban, by seeking an injunction against its implementation. We are asking here for an explanation of the compatibility or non-compatibility of the federal ban with reference to "Roe."
Comment: At first glance it seems that the ban could be attacked by claiming it to be in opposition to
"Roe." This presupposes that the procedure can be identified as abortion. "Roe" does not define abortion in terms of methods of killing the unborn. But, implicitly, "Roe" has limited itself to the killing of the unborn. Some qualified individuals would prefer to call this procedure infanticide, which is the killing of someone already born. The Court will now be pressed to define abortion, so that this method of killing can clearly be included by, or excluded from, that definition.The first obstacle in such a course of action is the question: Is the Court qualified to make the judgment? Are they competent to decide a question more proper to obstetrical specialists than to jurists? Would the Court accede to the judgment of such experts or even seriously see the need for them? If the Court would do no better in handling this question that they were in 1973, on the matter of whom or what is being killed in abortions, U.S. is in for another thirty years of well-deserved shame because of the unconscionable behavior of their highest court.
In banning partial-birth abortion does the legislature have anything to fear from "Roe?" Some bans opposing the procedure had been enacted by several states, and then discredited by federal courts. The most detailed of these is the "Nebraska" decision of the year 2000. In that case the Court decreed that the prohibition of partial-birth abortion imposes "an undue burden" on a woman seeking an abortion, citing the 1992 "Casey" decision.
What is the federal ban saying? It does not prohibit abortion, but it is saying that the procedure called "partial-birth abortion" is no longer an option, even when refraining from the use of this procedure is felt to be a burden. The legislature is saying that the use of the procedure is opposed by the people of the nation, and that the people have a right to decency that outweighs the individual's freedom to use a cruel and barbaric method of killing the unborn. Seen in this light, there could be a conflict between the legislature and the Court. Is the manner of killing within the competency of the Court? Does "Roe" grant freedom from restraint in the manner of killing the unborn? It is clear, from both law and practice, that the legislature has jurisdiction in limiting barbaric practices with respect to human subjects, and even to the misuse of the lesser animals.
Early in the abortion conflict, Missouri had outlawed the "saline procedure," a method of killing the more developed unborn by prolonged and painful immersion in a concentrated salt solution within the amniotic sac. The federal court, under pressure from the abortion-minded, declared that ban to be unconstitutional. Those who favor a national "toleration" of "Roe's" barbaric purpose and practices are sacrificing their credibility in any and all attempts to save "Roe" from embarrassment. And they are not secretive about their connection. They publicize it in order to solicit funds from their ever-decreasing membership to win candidates who would vote against anything that threatens "Roe."
Whether explicitly or not, "Roe" seems to say: "Anything goes!" It is already long past the time for the people to stand up and defend the ancient and necessary principle of common-decency. To implement the shout for decency is the primary and perpetual obligation of a legislature, for the well-being of its people.
If I may project an answer to your concern, there will be public discussion on what the people of the nation perceive to be a necessary confrontation between the legislature and the Court. It is my hope that this will come about, and eventually lead to a thorough and mutually honest and perceptive examination of Roe v. Wade by the legislature and the Court. Even though these are separate branches of government, human beings and not wooden twigs constitute the membership of both. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's Note: For the third time in as many years, the U.S. legislature has enacted a ban against partial-birth abortion. In the two previous instances, the enactments were vetoed by President Clinton. This third enactment is about to be signed into law by President Bush. We are asking for a comment on how the new law is likely to be received by the people of the nation.
Comment: From the above-mentioned history, it is evident that the majority of the people have expressed, through their elected legislators, a rejection of partial-birth abortion. This has been done with Roe v. Wade fully visible in the background.
Although many persons, otherwise inclined toward the legality of abortion, agree with the ban, there will be some who will violently oppose it. They have expressed their intention of seeking an injunction against its implementation. I will attempt to interpret their opposition and its consequences.
They claim that partial-birth abortion is used only rarely and only in cases of serious malformations of the baby or in cases of grave risk to the mother's life. All of these claims have been proved to be false. The facts, figures and sources of information were available to the legislators during their deliberations and will be adequately presented to the Appeals Court, should the injunction be granted.
Faced by the new law, it is possible that the abortion-minded, whether on the Court or outside of it, might attempt some new strategy to avoid embarrassment to Roe v. Wade. They might concede to the gut-feeling of many Americans that what is being spoken of here is not abortion but, rather, infanticide. As soon as "partial-birth abortion" would no longer be called abortion, there will be no felt need on the part of the abortion-minded to defend it. Then "Roe" would remain safe in its total command over the destiny of unborn babies in this nation. Or would this "Legislature v. Court" action raise enough eyebrows to demand an immediate and honest examination of Roe v. Wade?
Further speculation on effects of the partial-birth law should allow for a possible change its legal environment, which came into play on June 17, 2003. Roe v. Wade has been challenged by its plaintiff, the "Jane Roe" of that case, Ms. Norma McCorvey. She has filed a petition in federal court to open the case and to reverse its decision. Seen in light of her charges, the American public might well become sympathetic to her objective of obtaining justice for the women of our nation and for their unborn babies. It follows, too, that if "Roe" were to be removed from the scene, the partial-birth abortion ban would no longer be necessary.
Ms. McCorvey's petition points to changes in factual conditions and changes in law that make the prior decision no longer just in its present application. She cites physical and emotional hurt to abortive women, something unknown or neglected by the Court. She indicates the wealth of new, scientific evidence for the beginning of human life at conception, whereas the Court had professed only ignorance on this key item of their 1973 deliberations. She shows that there is no excuse now for abortions in Texas because of its Baby Moses law, whereby the state is pledged to accept unwanted children, from infancy to the 18th year, with no questions asked, and care for them.
In closing this comment, may I suggest that you viewers, and all other citizens of this earth, think carefully and compassionately on the vast social harm we have introduced into our world by having legalized abortion. Perhaps it is not too late to begin reversing this sad chapter in our individual and global existence. Let us sincerely applaud those nations among us who have resisted the temptation to betray their unborn offspring, and let us beg the continuance of their good example. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
_____________________
Editor’s Note: In the U.S. there is an interesting development in social consciousness concerning the inhabitant of the womb. Recent stimulus to the discussion is the question: If a pregnant woman were attacked, resulting in the death of her baby, may the attacker be charged with manslaughter or murder? See " The War Over Fetal Rights” in NEWSWEEK, June 9, 2003. The pending Peterson case in California has been cited as an example of such a situation, though there is recent evidence that the child might have been killed after having been born. The perpetrator was to have been charged with two murders, even though one of the victims was an unborn baby. Another example is offered by the death of a pregnant woman and her unborn baby in the Oklahoma City bombing, with the charge of two murders for the offense. The answer to the question above depends upon whether or not the baby’s death is contrary to existing law. California and Oklahoma have laws upholding the charge of manslaughter or murder in this instance.
At the present time, the U.S. legislature is in the process of formulating a law to protect the inhabitant of the womb by imposing federal penalties upon the attacker of the pregnant woman, for the death or injury of her baby. It is called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Twenty-eight states have already enacted laws to accomplish that purpose within the state. Texas is in the process of enacting a similar law. The puzzling aspect of such a law is that it covers only the mother’s non-willed death of the baby, exempting abortion from its purvey. Yet, the baby is just as dead, whether killed by the pregnant woman, or by an intruder. The law would protect only some inhabitants of the womb, at the choice of the pregnant woman, and under the sanction of Roe v. Wade. This is clearly a case of ethical schizophrenia.
We are asking for comment on two questions: In the U.S. is there any law, of state or federal jurisdiction, under the title of homicide or murder, which prohibits the direct killing of the inhabitant of the womb, against the will of the mother and, supposedly without physical injury to her? And is the inhabitant of the womb intrinsically worthy of legal defense or only in virtue of law?
Comment: In attempting to cover the range of your inquiry, I would begin with your last question, about the intrinsic “right to life” of the unborn baby. During the century prior to Roe v. Wade, this question would have been a non-question in the U.S. That is because its answer is patently self-evident. During that century the unborn baby was recognized by the majority of the people to be a human person. Also, the states had enacted laws to protect the life of the unborn baby. As persons, babies have rights. And the function of law is to protect those rights.
The Roe v. Wade court did not say that unborn babies are not human persons. They said that they do not know when human life begins. Yet, they gave legal protection to mothers who kill their unborn babies by abortion. This is the root of injustice to the unborn baby and of ethical anguish to the majority of the nation’s adult population.
It should be noted that laws attributing the charge of manslaughter or murder to the baby’s death, in the case of an attack on the mother, validate the common perception of the baby as a person. Those laws do not merely compensate the mother for the loss of something that “belongs” to her. They penalize the attacker, specifically, for the baby’s death, which, in virtue of the law, is a criminal offense, namely, manslaughter or murder. If the mother sues for any or all losses incurred in the violence, her claim will be cared for by civil law. It is the firm position of “unbornperson.org” that the offspring of human parentage, from the moment of conception (fertilization,) is worthy of legal protection. We hold to this, even if there were no civil law to proclaim and sanction that claim. The right to life is a human right, not contingent on civil law. Its foundation is rooted in correct thinking upon the nature of the human individual, sometimes called Natural Law.
Your first question may be answered by recalling that most of the states, prior to Roe v. Wade, had enacted laws against abortion, whether the abortion was willed or un-willed by the mother. The “Roe” court claimed that these laws were for the protection of the mother, rather than of her baby. Actually, the American Medical Association had stimulated the enactment of those laws, specifically, to protect the baby as a human person. (Section 9)
The Roe v. Wade decision is often, mistakenly, taken as an impediment against efforts to protect the baby in the womb. At the present time, in Florida, a circuit judge has denied the appointment of a guardian for the unborn baby of an incompetent woman, because of his claim that Florida has established no legal precedent for such action, and that Roe v. Wade denies the personhood of the unborn, leaving no grounds for guardianship. But there is no basis in “Roe” for the denial of federal or state protection of unborn babies, except for that one instance, the will of the baby’s mother. Florida will appeal the judge’s decision.
If I may add something for the viewer to consider, it would be to ponder the magnitude of hurtful consequences of Roe v. Wade, to individuals and to the society in the U.S. during the past thirty years and projected well into the future. By what right of logic, ethics or law did the U.S. Supreme Court take it upon themselves to initiate and perpetrate this destruction? And, how much longer is this violence against the inhabitant of the womb to be tolerated in a land dedicated to “liberty and justice for all?“ E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's Note: With credible rumors adrift, it would be interesting to consider what the new Supreme Court justices will be facing. One difficult challenge which they must encounter is to examine Roe v. Wade (1973) and its progeny, especially "Casey" (1992), "Webster" (1989), and "Nebraska" (2000) We feel that it is not unreasonable to predict an awakening of the Court to the need for examining these decisions in the near future. May we suggest that the viewer scan the above, linked documents to better understand the comments which follow:
Comment: The Supreme Court, in the last two decades of Roe v. Wade, have demonstrated their lack of confidence in the juridical soundness of their 1973 creation. They have manifested their uneasiness by piling "sand bags" and applying "band aids" in an attempt to bolster the image of "Roe." It must be remembered that "Roe" contested the Texas' claim of having a "state interest" (as opposed to the federal authority of the Court) in protecting the unborn from the time of conception. The Court was not willing to accept conception as the starting point of "a state's interest" in the natural result of that conception.
One element of "Webster" is the challenge to Missouri's claim of having "a state's interest" in protecting the unborn child from the time of his or her viability. The "Webster" court, in reviewing the challenge noted that "Roe" had admitted to "a state's interest" during the third-trimester of the pregnancy, but had made no mention of viability. At least some members of the Court suggested that, if the "Roe" court had used the term "viability," Missouri's claim would be valid. Missouri lost the decision. It is more than strange that the "Webster" court did not look into the probable intention of the "Roe" court when they were crafting the third-trimester provision. Any ordinary, reasoning person would have assumed that the "Roe" court were thinking in terms of viability. Why else did they relate "state's interest" with the third-trimester?
But the "Roe" court had already made a fatal mistake when they began speaking of the child during pregnancy as "potential life." The absurdity of this strategy would have become evident had the Court started talking about the viability of this "potential life." In their misguided loyalty to the "Roe" decision, the "Webster" court added another crutch for their defective parent to continue on its destructive "crusade."
"Casey" is still more a desperate attempt to "save the face" of Roe v. Wade. It would be a laughable attempt, were its effects not so death-dealing. The "Casey" court professed their inability to examine "Roe" within the possibility of reversing that decision. They offered two "reasons" for their self-inflicted limitation: 1. Women had become accustomed to having abortion as an element of their lifestyle and the "Casey" court could not deprive them of it. 2. If "Roe" were to be reversed by the "Casey" court, the nation would lose confidence in their justice system. It should also be remembered that it is the "Casey" court who established the "undue burden" clause which precludes many reasonable attempts to regulate legalized abortion.
It is in the "Nebraska" court's decision where the accumulated "house of cards" has begun to tumble. "Roe's" pretense at justice has collapsed and the obvious mission of social-engineering has become evident in the rubble. The revealing decision proclaims: To ban "partial-birth abortion" is to impose an "undue burden" on women and, therefore, is unconstitutional. It should be remembered that twice the full U.S. legislature had enacted a ban against the barbaric procedure. In each instance, the expressed will of the people was ruthlessly vetoed by the then president, Bill Clinton. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: You guys are spinning your wheels with your campaign against abortion. Why don't you try to protect kids who get wiped out by their parents after they are born? There's plenty of that going on. And I think it would be easier too.
Reply: We are already fighting child abuse. Abortion is the worst kind of child abuse! I would like to agree with you that it should be easier to save kids who are big enough to be seen and heard, rather than kids which are not yet born. But it doesn't always work that way. Parents are free to kill their children before they are born, according to Roe v. Wade. There would be no less wheel-spinning when we tell them they must not kill their already-born children. Is there really any difference?
I would suggest that this is only a part of the growing problem of child abuse. Problem parents aren't held back from killing their toddlers and pre-teens whom they see and hear. Just the opposite! They kill because of seeing and hearing more of them than they are willing to bear. In some instances, of course, the children are not the primary targets, but rather a means of one spouse wishing to hurt the other. Or the children might be the victims of parental drug abuse.
It should be presumed that parents kill their already-born children only after becoming subject to some form of mental derangement. The question then becomes a search for the causes of their mental breakdown. In this brief reply I will offer only one generalized observation and one which is more particularized. These observations might also apply to parents who kill their children by abortion.
We, as individuals and as a society, have become involved in more activity than most of us can handle. Sometimes this is by choice, more often by contrived necessity. We do not have time available for planning, for evaluating and for restructuring our activities. So we become exhausted, physically, mentally and morally. Parents, being at the center of many diverse worlds, and feeling the constant weight of their responsibilities, civic and social, sometimes collapse under the stresses of daily living.
In sharper focus, I suggest the hurtful neglect of cultivating restraint in our lives and in the lives of our children. "Me, first!" and "Do your own thing!" is a explosive mixture. The home, being flammable, is no place for allowing it to accumulate for storage. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's Note: We have noticed an upward trend toward recognition of the unborn as human beings, and as persons. The media is more frequently referring to the unborn as "unborn children." We are asking E.R. to comment on this encouraging development.
Comment: Perhaps it was the widely publicized, brief history of attempts at cloning humans that awakened the public to the identity of the inhabitant of the womb. I pose this curious suggestion to demonstrate the peculiarities of public perception. Something is so ordinary that it can be taken for granted, namely, that the inhabitant of the womb is of the same species as the mother. This had to be contested by the abortion-minded because they had already accepted the mother as a human person. They attempted to impersonalize the inhabitant of the womb by using impersonal names, such as "product of conception." Of course, everyone knows that the product of human conception is, until birth, an unborn, human baby. Political correctness, however, along with its companion, a mistaken sense of toleration, inclined the media to use the dehumanizing names which the abortion community had proposed.
In contrast with the transparency of natural human reproduction, cloning is full of mystery, a "cause celebre" of modern technology. Something so startling and unlikely as the production of human beings by cloning could be accepted without contest. It just had to be so! It is so much at "the cutting edge of science!" Now that Dolly, the sheep, had been cloned, it would be only a matter of time before humans would be cloned! Perhaps it is the ease with which the media captivated the imagination of the people that alerted the more serious-minded to the need for protecting unborn humans who had come into existence by "the old-fashioned way." They began to defy political correctness and began to speak the truth: The unborn of human parentage are unborn babies or, if you wish, unborn children.
Those who persist in clamoring for therapeutic cloning (the production of embryonic humans to be used for "spare-parts" to benefit other humans who are disabled by serious illnesses) claim government prohibition to be both unfair and foolish. They propose, with glowing enthusiasm, the possible healing of specific disabilities with the "product" of cloning. They also emphasize the market value of such possibilities, and the advantage of prestige in leading the competition among other states or nations. They speak of almost anything, except to reveal their belief that the product of cloning is a human being. That is why they want to clone, to satisfy their need for human cells. Human cells, of course, must be taken from human beings. To mask the reality, they have changed the name of cloning to "somatic cell nuclear transfer technology." Strangely, they do not ask the reasons behind the opposition to their desire. Do they not know that it is unethical to kill one human for the "benefit" of another? And why aren't they up-to-date in this field of experimentation, which has demonstrated the superiority of stem-cells from sources which do not necessitate the killing of the human from which they are extracted?
Setting aside the above musings of one trying to understand how social perception develops, sometimes absurdly, sometimes with rational clarity, let us look into the reaction of the people, world-wide at the prospects of cloning human beings.
Enthusiasm for cloning has been declining, not only for that which is called "reproductive cloning" (to introduce new members into the human society) but also for "therapeutic cloning," as defined above. The mystique is vanishing and the sober thinking has begun. It is interesting to note that the concern, nationally and internationally, against all cloning (of humans) rests on the belief that human cloning is possible, that it really produces human beings. And this is the key to their opposition, that cloning of human beings is an abuse of an individual's basic human rights and a threat to the gene-pool of the entire human race.
For the past two years it has been the clearly stated position of this web site that human cloning is not likely ever to be accomplished ( December 30, 2000). For many people the bubble has not burst. But, as I have suggested above, their credulity has served a social purpose, the awakening to another danger, one real, not merely imagined. For a closer view of attempts at human cloning, discouragement has come from at least two sources: Dolly had to be euthanized because of defects arising from her cloned beginning. Experts in cloning the lesser animals are in agreement that defects are inherent in all organisms resulting from the process. Some of the investors are debating the feasibility of continued experimentation. A final blow against enthusiasm for human cloning is the recent report that several years of attempting to clone primates has been a dismal failure, with no clones having been produced, leading to the conclusion that primates cannot be cloned successfully. A simplified explanation of one consequence of the many attempts is that, after the start of the cloning process, cell division does not proceed with natural equity to the daughter-cells. One of them comes away from the division with more cytoplasm than it should, whereas the other is deficient in what it should have obtained in its composition. The result of this inequity multiplies in subsequent divisions, which terminates the process in the death of the cloned primate. It has been reasonably concluded that if primate cloning is not possible, even more so, human cloning.
May I conclude these musings with the hope that our society has learned some lessons from one another, beginning with Roe v. Wade, and will have continued learning into the projected future, a future more realistic than the recent past. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
_____________________
Comment: The Peterson case should help us to see that the people of California have judged the unborn to be persons. The killing of an unborn baby, in the act of killing the mother, may lead to the charge of double-murder, by the laws of that state. It is a shame that the Roe vs. Wade people didn't see the person in the unborn as do the people of California.
Reply: About twenty-six states in the U.S. have laws protecting the unborn through various stages of their development and under various circumstances. It might be questioned whether those laws are equivalent to declarations of personhood for the unborn. California's law, enabling the charge of murder to be applied to the death of an unborn, seems to be founded on the recognition of his or her personhood. The legal term "murder" would otherwise be misapplied to the case. A more recent case is in the process of being filed in Oklahoma, a murder charge for the death of an unborn, of thirty-two weeks gestation, in the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building, in which the mother was also killed.
Your comment strikes a tender nerve in the decision of the "Roe" court. We should hasten to note that the Court did not directly deny the humanity and personhood of the unborn. Indirectly, of course, they did. By giving legal protection for mothers who wish to kill their unborn babies, the Court implied that the unborn are not persons and, therefore, may be killed without fear of the existing homicide laws of the several states. Nor did the Court say that a mother may kill her unborn baby. Theirs was a more sly approach. They said that no one (not even the baby's father?) may interfere with the mother's choice of killing her unborn child. If this should look like placing the blame of killing on the mother, rather than involving themselves in it, there might be some truth in that presumption.
The "Roe" court declared an unborn to be "not a person, in the full-sense." Were they talking about legal personhood (legal recognition of personhood) or of that which characterizes you or me as a human being? I submit to you, viewers, and to the world, that it is beyond the competency of the Court to invent a stage of existence between "person" and "non-person," as suggested by their classification of "not a person, in the full-sense" and in their additional fiction: "a potential human." Simply put, there is no intermediate term between "person" and "non-person." The Court's "potential human" also falls short of reality, since it is a contradiction of terms.
It is interesting that commentators on the Peterson case indicate that there is no conflict between a state's declaration of personhood of the unborn and the "Roe" decision. I see great importance in that observation. For too long now, the U.S. has contorted its justice system by unwarranted deference to "Roe." Now is the time to say "Keep "Roe" out of this matter, and let justice be done!"
It is also interesting that the commentators make a distinction between a mother's willing and not-willing her baby's death. If a mother should will that her unborn child be killed, the killer could not be charged with the child's murder. Commentators hastened to report that the Peterson mother had "wanted" her child. This keynotes the evil influence of "Roe," that one private individual may decide the death of another, without regard for the other's right to life and without regard for the community's loss of membership.
As for the "Roe" court's thoughtless mischief, I have no explanation to suggest other than their disregard of ethical principles, and their substitution of morally-untested precedents in the place of the neglected principles. For this, as a court dedicated to justice, they should be charged with dereliction of duty.
Permit me to ask this question: If, before the time of "Roe," California had legislated, at least by inference, the personhood of the unborn, should not the "Roe" decision have been modified to say: "No one may interfere with a mother's killing of her unborn baby, except in the state of California?" I pose this question to demonstrate the absurdity of allowing "Roe" to dictate state or federal policy with respect to the protection of their unborn.
And this prompts a related question: Since California has declared protection for its unborn (after seven weeks of gestation, about thirty years ago) does "Roe" have any standing in that state to demand freedom for the abortion of an unborn baby of more than seven weeks gestation? (In the Peterson case, the baby was of eight-months gestation.) Certainly the Court could not protect the killing of these unborn in California, whether by abortion or otherwise, since those babies are legally recognized as human persons, with respect to murder, in that state.
I summarize the above observations with this simple statement: The "Roe" Court has neither openly denied the personhood of the unborn nor do they have the competency to do so, leaving the state and federal government free to protect their unborn against the specious claims of "Roe." Further, let me suggest that the federal government and the states should stand up for their right and obligation to protect all human beings living within their boundaries, especially those still living within the natural sanctuary of their mothers' wombs. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: I am writing a paper for class on abortion. I am using what we had in Physiology about reproduction processes. The professor and all of the references spoke about fertilization as the beginning of the human being same as for the other organisms produced by sexual reproduction. I just want to say that it is not right to kill human beings anytime -- even before birth. I don't understand how anyone could have a problem with that.
Reply: In your brief statement you have said the whole thing: To kill the unborn is to do evil. Your question seems to be asking: "Why, then, do people have abortions?" You might have noticed on our web site that we go one step further, by asking the Supreme Court of the United States to explain their approval of abortion.
Why people sometimes do what is evil is too large a subject for consideration here. However, I suggest two possibilities: Some people might be ignorant of the evil, or even misled away from the truth by propaganda. Others might be aware of the evil but find excuses to over-ride the prohibition. In your question, there is a third possibility, namely ignorance or error concerning the facts of reproduction. From this web site you will notice a fourth possibility: failure to see the need for the philosophical insight on human reproduction.
May I suggest that you continue your interest in the problem of legalized abortion by searching this web site for combinations of terms, such as: conception, soul, Philosophy, human being, human life. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: I would like to think that abortion in the United States will soon lose its legal protection. People are beginning to see that it is hurtful to our sense of decency and that it reduces our moral stature as a nation. Do you have any idea of how and when we will be able to get back to normal?
Reply: One step toward getting back to normal (I like your way of putting that!) is to educate the people to see that we are not playing fair with our nation when we kill those who should be its future. We are killing one-third of the possible newcomers to our society. And, with their absence, we lose the talents and earning power which is necessary to sustain our nation. In killing them, we are killing ourselves.
In many countries the unwarranted scare of overpopulation has been replaced by awareness of national decline and the possibility of eventual collapse. In some western countries immigration has already become necessary for survival. By simple projection of mathematics the ethnic blood and culture of the immigrants can be perceived as replacing those nations in the course of time.
As for the "How?" of getting back to normal, step one is to unfasten the grip of Roe v. Wade from the throat of our justice system. A suitable image here is the recent toppling from its pedestal the immense statue of Saddam Hussein by the people of Iraq. It should be noted, though, that with the demise of "Roe" there would still remain its hurtful consequences, imprinted on the laws of our land. Abuses against the right to life and human dignity, stemming from "Roe," range from attempts at human cloning to denial of care for comatose, elderly patients.
The final step toward getting back to normal must give legal recognition to the human personhood of the unborn from the time of his or her conception. Only this could undo the residue of injustice and legalized confusion suffered by the nation during these past thirty years of juridical tyranny by Roe v. Wade. And it would begin to reverse the shameful decline of our nation. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: I have heard of no laws against in-vitro fertilization, which is in use around the world. Why do you oppose it? I agree with you that cloning humans should not be allowed. That would affect the whole human race.
Reply: Your question seems to infer that "in-vitro fertilization" is strictly a private matter and has no social consequences. From a strict scientific point of view, it may be too early for a final appraisal of the practice. There are some studies, already under way, which raise questions pertaining to the health of some individuals conceived "in vitro" instead of in the natural, maternal environment. Whether these could lead to factors capable of influencing the health of other members of the society, it is too early to say. Although the essential biology of reproduction appears to be the same in both instances, "in-vitro fertilization" involves additional handling of the delicate reproductive cells and exposure to a foreign physical environment. It is reasonable to assume that some physiological factors may be involved also, such as those caused by the chemical stimulation of the ovaries to produce multiple ova for the procedure. Even the multiple implantations might occasion hostile stress to be encountered by the growing, embryonic humans.
Although we are interested in the biology of "in-vitro fertilization" our principal objection to its use is a moral one. In practice, several ova are obtained and then fertilized in the petri-dish, some of which are selected for implantation, others either for storage or for discard or, eventually, for experimentation. At "unbornperson.org" it is our position that the fertilized human ovum is already a human person and must be respected as such.
It must be noted that the procedure has a poor success rate. Several attempts, on average, are made for each live birth. In many instances it is a total, emotionally exhausting, failure. Meanwhile, embryonic human beings are subjected to dying, before and after implantation. In other cases, where several embryos have been implanted, some are selectively chosen to be killed to "make room" for a remaining one or two. There is no ethical basis to justify such behavior.
From another perspective, the practice of "in-vitro fertilization" is not limited to the husband-wife relationship. Selected donors of sperm and of ova are sometimes used, within and outside of the marriage relationship. And surrogate mothers are sometimes employed. This tends not only to destroy the maternal-child bonding process of the biological mother and child, but also leads to lawsuits between the two women for "possession" of the child. Even if there should be no biological harm accruing to the society from "in-vitro fertilization," the practice must be seen as conducive to hurtful ethical and psychological consequences, such as those noted above.
It goes without saying that the child conceived "in-vitro" is subjected to unfair and hazardous risk from the time of life's beginning and, perhaps, for a long time thereafter. Does the desire to parent a child justify the imposition of that risk upon the human being conceived by "in-vitro fertilization?"
For the benefit of those who wish to consider the morality of "in-vitro fertilization" more thoroughly, may I close this Reply with an additional question: In very limited circumstances, a single ovum from the wife is fertilized by the husband and implanted in his wife as the only means of initiating their pregnancy. Incompetent Fallopian tubes might describe such a case. They will respect the right to life and nurture of their offspring. Would "in-vitro fertilization," under these conditions, be morally acceptable? E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's Note: In a recent address Alan Keyes said that peoples' willingness to kill innocent human beings has occasioned the legalization of abortion and currently maintains it. He also said that the denial of an obligation to protect innocent human beings is an indicator of a complete moral breakdown in the society where it is found. We ask E.R. to comment on this indictment of our present social condition.
Comment: There is nothing more fundamental in traditional moral thinking than the command: "Do no harm." This command is clearly reflected in the "Hands off the innocent!" moral law of which Alan Keyes was speaking. As human beings, our respect for one another's autonomy follows as an obligation at the same level as our obligation to respect ourselves and to respect God, our Creator. This is a matter of justice, of giving to others what is due to them. In contrast, our present social environment permits "Me first!" and "Do your own thing!" to replace the ancient restraints of being a brother or sister to every other human being.
It is interesting to note that, in the early days of legalized abortion, proponents of abortion attempted to disguise the victim of "the procedure" as non-human or, in a greater degree of sophistication, non-person. Even the Supreme Court had entered the charade by speaking of the "potential human being". It was not long, however, before the pretense became unnecessary. The older ethical barrier had been broken and the "New Ethics" is quite undisturbed by the evidence of commonsense and scientific demonstration concerning the humanity and personhood of the prime victim of abortion. We see now why the abortion-minded speak only of the woman's "right to choose" without ever referring to the innocent victim of her choice.
In the older tradition, "Might makes right." became a description of the unthinkable, both in theory and practice. It is now an accepted dictum. The uncontrolled power of the Roe v. Wade Court, through the converse of tyranny, has sanctioned the killing of what they knew might well be innocent human beings, yet proceeded with their unethical decision to protect the killers of the unborn.
Society has begun to accept certain values as superior to the worth of innocent life. In the 1992 Supreme Court decision, called "Casey," women's lifestyles incorporating abortion were declared more worthy than the innocent lives destroyed by their abortions. Prior to that, self-styled moralists would resort to the fiction of the unborn baby as an unjust aggressor, preventing the mother from "doing her own thing." The fetal-cell marketers have offered, unrealistically, the cure of diseases as more valuable than the life of the human beings from which they are taken. Even some churches have established values which supercede the worth of a human being waiting to be born. Strangely, the Creator's voice is absent in the fabricating of those inventions which are said to justify the killing of the innocent unborn by abortion.
Yes, I am confident that Alan Keyes made his point. If a society is willing to kill the innocent, not only for the frivolous reasons mentioned above, but for any reason, that society has sounded its own death knell. With a self-imposed noose around its neck, that society is now kicking away the bucket upon which it has been standing. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's Note: The serious business of putting things in place to offset legalized abortion in the U.S. is not being neglected by the Administration, despite the difficult and absorbing problems of fighting terrorism. The two are of the same cloth: human life must be protected, whether outside the womb or within it. E.R. has volunteered to comment on some of the effort in progress for protecting the unborn.
Comment: Yesterday the partial-birth abortion ban was voted on in the U.S. Senate passing by a vote of 64-33. President Bush has said that he is "eager" to sign it into law. The gruesome procedure of partially delivering, and then killing, the child is infanticide rather than abortion. It is a brutal manner of deliberately killing a feeling, defenseless human being. The medical profession denies any health benefit which would justify the practice, even within the so-called "abortion rights" of Roe v. Wade.
In another area of respect for human life, all attempts at human cloning have been banned by the House of Representatives. The Senate will debate whether to ban all attempts at human cloning or to ban only the introduction of human clones into our society should any ever be produced. The latter, untenable position would permit attempting to produce human clones for the purpose of killing them for their "body parts." An international program has been initiated to limit attempts at human cloning. It is hoped that the U.S. will unite with the other countries who prohibit all attempts at human cloning.
We, at "unbornperson.org" have taken the position that the cloning of humans will never be accomplished. That is why I use the expression: "attempts at human cloning." Yet, we stress the need for a prohibition against the attempts to clone humans. Despite promises of the experimenters to overcome pathological disabilities with the use of stem-cells taken from cloned embryos, there is no ethical basis to justify their intentions. If, indeed, humans were cloned, their human dignity would not permit their being sacrificed, even for the supposed good of others. And, even if humans cannot be cloned, the intentions which drive the attempts to clone are unethical. To intend evil is itself evil.
The biology of stem-cells, and its application to healing, indicates that embryonic stem-cells, such as taken from "left-over" IVF experiments, do not help adult patients, but worsen their condition. Stem-cells taken from placental tissue or from organs of adult humans are beneficial for repair of damaged or deficient adult tissue, without damage to the donor. Stem-cells taken from an embryo brings about his or her death.
The Administration in Washington has its Bioethical Commission to guide its course of action through the difficult "minefield" of modern biotechnology. It would be beneficial to the country, and to its image in the world, if their expertise were brought more heavily to bear upon the problem of legalized abortion, which plagues the land dedicated to "justice and freedom for all."
Throughout the country, at the State level, progress continues to limit the reach of the abortionist. The positive approach here, for example, is to provide opportunity for informed consent on the part of the mother, especially of the uninformed and panic-stricken young woman, in whose interest parental notification becomes required by law. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: I wonder about someone's ability to choose abortion. It is so contrary to the way people should look at parenthood as an obligation to care for the child. There is also the problem of suicide which is also against the natural inclination for self preservation. Like what is happening in the state of Oregon with assisted-suicide. Nature demands the constant striving of living things to sustain their own lives. Next to that comes the nurture of the young. It seems that people are losing contact with their own human nature when they surrender to contradictions like abortion and suicide.
Reply: Your concept of "surrender" to anti-life tendencies helps us to see that there is an awareness in the moral makeup of human beings which inclines us to favor life and to be suspicious of measures to harm it. But, in our daily environment, there are some factors which influence our actions in opposition to our native moral sense. Found in so many individuals of our time, those factors have become a part of our culture. Surrendering to them, widely and openly and with government approval, is a cultural breakdown of major proportions.
Since many abortions and many suicides are not "thought out," but are emotionally driven, your point of "losing contact with our human nature" is a good observation. Even when one's emotional state precludes the process of thought, the natural feelings should still be functioning. If, indeed, this should be so, then your term "surrender" is well chosen.
The three anti-life cases mentioned above, suicide, abortion and euthanasia (assisted-suicide) have much in common. Yet, there are some unique differences which distinguish them. At this time abortion will be the subject of our discussion. If you, or any other viewer, would wish to examine the unnatural characteristics of suicide, we would attempt some insights on that also.
I suggest that it is the context of the problem which leaves may individuals vulnerable to "surrendering" to the unnatural act of abortion. The reproductive function, when terminating in pregnancy, consciously and deeply involves the entire person of the woman. Sometime, also of the child's father. The perceived consequences of pregnancy can fill a person with joy, or with profound sadness, depending on the totality of the circumstances. Although fear may reasonably accompany the joy, it need not be destructive of it, as when happily-married parents, with confidence in God and His creation, welcome their child. Sadness, even when reasonable in light of the circumstances, is often accompanied by destructive fear and, sometimes, panic. A woman who is alone and without physical necessities might well serve to exemplify this situation. Without internal and external resources, such a one might see abortion as the only solution to her totally absorbing and urgent problem.
In some instances, however, parents having adequate resources of money and friends also choose abortion. So, to poverty and panic there must be added such factors as permissive irresponsibility, exemplified by the legalization of abortion. Consider also the promoters and providers of abortion. The motive of those who are in business for profit is not difficult to understand. Many times the profit-motive may be obscured by the claim of offering a necessary and compassionate "service." It is logic which is surrendered here, but for the unwary it is a persuasion.
To counsel for abortion and to provide abortion, for some individuals and for some groups, is a driving need, akin to a crusade, as when "Women's Lib." was in its heyday. In that instance there was a perceived need to proclaim that being a woman is more significant than being human, in an attempt to persuade women to divorce themselves from the human race. Other social-engineers have arisen to fill the need to smooth the rough consequences of permissive conduct. They are the logical "compensators" required to continue a society, one rationally and morally bankrupt, in existence a little longer, perhaps until the society runs out of children. They soften the consciences of the vulnerable women through their apparent altruism.
In all fairness, some of these persons, perhaps even some groups, feel themselves to be benefactors, morally justified in what they do. Some find approval from their churches, which is not easy to understand. Is there some "surrender" there also? And consider some of the media, who have been a powerful source of objectifying people's subjective stance in favor of abortion. Has there been here a "surrender" to the indecent and obscene? Abortion has become not only legal, but "acceptable," because it is openly embraced by the culture, paving the way for other unnatural extravagances against the human individual, such as attempts at human cloning. This is the environment which is instrumental in persuading persons to seek out, and subject themselves to, the indignity of abortion. The pro-life community attempts to offset these detrimental factors by offering supportive assistance to parents who are experiencing distressful pregnancies.
Many thanks for your comment! May it help us all to fortify ourselves against the dismissal of conscience and the destructiveness of surrendering to values which demean our human dignity. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: I recall many years of open confrontation between the prolife and prochoice people, especially from the mid-eighties to the mid-nineties. What has happened? Did the people lose interest or has some sort of compromise developed?
Reply: On the part of "the people," as you expressed it, there is still interest and there has been no compromise. Tactics have changed, however. Confrontation on the streets has lessened, but not in the
legislatures and in the media. In the federal legislature, abortion and its related attacks on the unborn, such as fetal stem-cell research and attempts at human cloning, have become strategies in party politics. It seems fair to say that the Republican party favors the unborn's right to
life, whereas the Democrat party opposes the Republican's effort to legalize that protection. The conflict centers not only on legislation pertaining to the unborn, but also on the appointment of federal judges, who might be in favor of the unborn's right to life.
The media participates in the on-going conflict with news stories which tend to enhance the dream of curing adult disabilities with fetal stem-cells taken from the "extra" embryos of in-vitro fertilization and
from what the dream envisions as cloned, embryonic humans. The media seems to welcome celebrities who plead for legislation to make such stem-cells available for specific persons of their acquaintance and, therefore, for everyone.
The pro-life community has shifted from confrontation to a more quiet and more successful form of persuasion. Their emphasis now is on prayer, education and supportive services for distressful pregnancies. The pro-choice community, as evidenced from recently published statements of
their leaders, is concentrating on building up their declining membership and in backing legislators who favor their stand on legalized abortion. They have pledged themselves to undertake a large fund-drive for the latter purpose and for propaganda through the media. Their rally-cry at the moment is for the rescue of their endangered anchorage, the Roe v. Wade decision.
The general public is moving closer to agreement with the pro-life concern that human life has been rapidly losing respect and value, and that a change in the moral climate of the society is required to enact laws protecting human life, especially of those waiting to be born.
Yes, the conflict continues. The newest element, if my observation is correct, is the entrance into the arena of today's youngsters and young-adults. Many of them understand and incorporate the practice of chastity in their own lives and, without embarrassment, proclaim it to others. Those of the preceding generation, jaded by the physical extravagances of the so-called "sexual revolution," are beginning to find truth in this newer social revolution. To the extent of their personal honesty they welcome the breath of fresh air in their stagnating environment. Such is the tale of History. The pendulum is swinging again! E.R. reply@unbornperson.org____________________
Comment: You have expressed skepticism against the probability of human cloning. So far you seem to be correct in your assessment. I think it will be awhile until anyone else claims to have cloned a human, especially after the Clonaid fiasco.
Reply: It is unfortunate that some experimenters will continue their striving to produce a human clone. Despite their claim to benefit the sick, it is a project unworthy of human endeavor. No socially responsible individual would want to produce a human being for the purpose of destroying that person. The pursuit of human cloning for harvesting stem cells is further unfortunate because it is bad biology. Stem cells of the embryo are less useful for curing diseases of the elderly than are the stem cells of the adult, which can be obtained from the donor without fatal injury.
Stem cells from embryos left over from "in vitro fertilization" experiments have been used in attempts to cure degenerative diseases in adults, without measurable success. Stem cells from adults have proved to be better suited to function in adult tissue. The explanation is rooted in the fact that cells respond to their natural environmental factors, fetal cells to the fetal environment and adult cells to the adult environment. This "generation-gap" is dictated by nature for its own purposes and is not to be offset by the bio-technicians of our day.
Because of interest concerning our long-standing statement against the likelihood of human cloning, let me present here a brief explanation of our position: The human individual is a composite of matter and non-matter (spirit.) This a fact deduced from the human's ability to know, and be motivated by, not only material objects, but also by non-material ones. In common with the lesser animals, we humans can know and be moved by food, pleasure and pain, and so forth. But we can also know and be moved by non-material, abstract realities, such as goodness, beauty and truth. Our principle of life (soul) has a greater perfection than that of the lesser animals, as evidenced in our use of intellect and free-will, whereas the lesser animals are limited to sense-knowledge and blind instinct.
In the reproduction of the lesser animals, the body-material is contributed by the parents to their offspring, and it is vitalized through the material design built into the workings of nature In the case of humans, the material for the offspring's body is also given by the parents; the non-material, vitalizing principle must come from another source, namely the Author of nature. It is interesting that this "Person to person" relationship is what distinguishes the activity of human beings from that of the lesser animals; the human individual not only knows his Creator, but also knows his accountability to the Creator.
It is the position of "unbornperson.org" that the Creator is not likely to provide a human soul to vitalize any unnatural composition of material offered by the bio-technicians. The Creator already has a natural plan for human reproduction, which has been working quite well from the beginning and is not likely to be changed to serve the whims of some who are, themselves, mere creatures of that same Creator. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: I just had a discussion with a friend and she told me conception takes place between 7 to 14 days after intercourse. I guess she was trying to defend the morning after pill, which I don't know too much about. How long does it take before conception takes place and what about the morning after pill? Does it just prevent pregnancy or kill whatever life there may be?
Reply: Conception takes place at the moment when the two reproductive cells, the ovum of the mother and the sperm of the father, unite to form a single cell. That cell is a new human being, the offspring of the two persons who furnished the two reproductive cells. This is sound Biology and can be referenced from any reliable textbook. The time, after intercourse, when conception takes place will vary within a range of several hours, in individual cases.
The claim that conception occurs at the implantation of the embryo into the uterine wall is originally an invention of the abortion-minded. More recently, in our day of embryonic experimentation, the technicians have borrowed the claim, to make their destruction of embryonic humans appear to be less reprehensible.
In the science of Embryology, it is the embryo which implants itself into the uterine wall, a process called nidation, or "nesting." The embryo is programmed as an organism to do this, at the proper time, by its genetic information. If the embryo were not a living organism before implantation, there would be no implantation. As with another gestational event, the development of the placenta, the embryo is "in charge" of the pregnancy, remaining so until birth.
The effects of the "morning after pill" vary with the presence or absence of an embryo. If conception had taken place, the pill prevents the embryo from nesting into the specially-prepared, spongy tissue of the uterine wall, which usually occurs at about seven days after conception. As a result, the embryo will die. For this reason, that pill is known to be abortifacient.
It should be noted here that the circumstances of the pill's interaction with the delicate process of reproduction, even if not causing immediate death for the embryonic human being, might disable it for the rest of his or her life. Such effects could result from incomplete or partial nesting. Also, the British government's Chief Medical Officer has recently claimed that Levonelle, the "morning after pill," is related to a high rate of ectopic pregnancy. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: The people dedicated to cloning humans are not listening to the rest of the world. We don't need cloning and we don't want cloning! I am pleased to see the international effort being mounted to outlaw human cloning throughout the world.
Reply: Although it is my opinion that the cloning of a human being will never be accomplished, See Response December 30, 2000. I sympathize with your concern. Attempts at human cloning are hurtful to human individuals and to the society as a whole, so let us speak of those attempts.
Animal cloning no longer requires that the somatic-cell nucleus be taken from an embryonic individual, as in the early days of experimentation. However, embryonic humans are still a prime target for some human-cloning research, which means that human individuals are being sacrificed to serve that purpose. "Discarded" embryos resulting from "in-vitro fertilization" and others produced for this use are being employed, without regard for the dignity belonging to them in virtue of their human personhood.
Attempts at human cloning are hurtful to our society, since they devaluate the intrinsic worth of the individual member of the human race. When we tamper with the sovereign rights of human individuals, we destroy the foundations of human society.
The international movement against human-cloning is well founded, not only to prevent "contamination" of our common, genetic gene-pool, but to uphold our status as a people of responsible behavior and of respect for one another. For many of the world's citizenry there is an added motivation: respect for the beneficial design of our Creator and for His government by which both the human individual and the society may live and prosper.
Unfortunately, some of the international effort would prohibit "reproductive-cloning," but would permit "therapeutic-cloning." The former instance concerns the attempt to produce clones who would mature and enter, as members, into human society. The latter instance concerns the attempted cloning of human embryos for the purpose of experimentation, such as using their stem-cells in attempts to cure certain organic diseases. This web site, "unbornperson.org" would welcome discussion with persons of either persuasion, those holding for partial or total restraint.
With reference to "therapeutic-cloning," it has been well demonstrated that embryonic stem-cells are less effective for the repair process in mature tissue than are the stem-cells produced by, and taken from, mature organs. See Response July 26, 2001 E.R.
____________________
Comment: BABIES ARE BEING KILLED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD! If this big lettered sign were appended on the corner telephone pole, as are notices of Garage Sales, would anyone think of calling 911 on the nearest telephone? Not on the 30th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade! Killing babies is a long-going lawful practice in the U.S. The passer-by might merely shrug his or her shoulders, saying: "It's only unborn babies they're talking about."
Reply: You have dramatized, very well, one of the factors playing in the thirty-year paralysis of justice in our country. I call it the stagnation of thought and action, developed through the multiplication of unresolved, essential issues. The issue here is whether the baby waiting to be born is any less a baby than the one already born. Partial-birth abortion is a case in point. Is it abortion or is it infanticide? The answer to that question would have substantial significance, in light of Roe v. Wade, but not to the ethicist, who sees the same person inside and outside the womb of his or her mother.
The ethicist would say that the Court, admitting its ignorance of when the human being begins to exist, should have respected the unborn as a human person, just as much as the nation does for those already born. The ethical principle is very clear: In case of substantial doubt concerning the facts, where injury is a probable consequence, an action may not be undertaken.
Though Roe v. Wade is used as an excuse for partial-birth abortion, it should be remembered that the "Roe" court did not "grant" a "right to kill." It did something beyond that; it prohibited anyone, even the baby's father, from preventing the mother's action. The Court seems to have been unwilling to take the blame for the killing; that was to be the mother's choice, not theirs. The father's right to defend his baby's life seems to have been ignored completely.
Three questions are apparent: Did the Court have an ethical right to sanction the mother's choice? Did the Court have legal jurisdiction over the life and death of the human being waiting to be born or, in the case of partial-birth abortion, already born? Did not the Court have an obligation in justice to consider the natural rights of the father?
These questions, and many more, unasked by the nation and unanswered by the Court, reveal the falsity of the Court's decision. In the words of Justice White, then sitting on the Court, the decision is "an exercise in raw judicial power," which suggests legislating new law instead of interpreting current law. Yet, after thirty years of enforcing their atrocious policy at the cost of many millions of lives and multitudes of distraught parents, the Court still holds the nation captive to their deceptive ideology.
For those willing to be deceived, the sign on the pole is merely a nuisance, a fallout of "necessary" social-engineering by the "avant-garde" of modern technology. Fortunately the sign would have meaning for some of the nation, and they are responding by putting an ax to the root of the monstrous absurdity, Roe v. Wade. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: In these days of rapid communication, similar cultural changes occur rapidly throughout the world. What are the chances that the elimination of Roe vs. Wade might start a world-wide limitation of legalized abortion?
Reply: The demise of Roe v. Wade in the U.S. might start other nations thinking about the role of government and its limitation in the area of human rights. That would be good, but probably not sufficient to influence, greatly, the action of other nations. But the possibility must be examined.
The U.S. was not the first to legalize abortion. Japan and some European countries, such as Russia, led the way by at least twenty years. It is not clear that the U.S. had been influenced by their action. It is more likely that the breakdown of morality occurred spontaneously within each country, at whatever time its culture had become degenerate. This would not deny the possibility that any good example of the United States, at this moment in history, could cause other nations to reconsider their current approval of abortion. The two time-sectors, in terms of human behavior, are not the same.
I refer here to the gullible acceptance of abortion by a nation as a strike for "equality of the sexes," or for "liberation of women," or to stem "overpopulation," and so forth. In contrast, the reaction of a people who had experienced the fallacy of those early claims, would be more receptive to facing the truth, whether from others or from their own inward recognition of the reality.
In these matters there is hidden a subtle paradox, which might enable me to answer your question in the affirmative: If the U.S. were to repeal liberalized abortion, some other countries would do likewise. The paradox is seen, for example, in Japan and Russia. Both countries, for pragmatic reasons, "preach" against abortion, even offering "rewards" for child-bearing, yet have not withdrawn the permissiveness of legalized abortion.
In Japan, it has become a custom for women and men, having experienced abortion, to present a baby-doll, dressed in baby-clothing to a religious shrine, to be cared for on their behalf. This ceremonial expression of reparation and grieving speaks more truthfully than the permissive enactments of that nation's law.
If the U.S. were to discard its advocacy of abortion, vested in Roe v. Wade, other countries, even Japan, might look up and listen, and the paradox would vanish.
The U.S. knows the relationship between its laws and the culture of its people, because of their experience with the "great experiment" in the early days of the 20th Century, known as Prohibition. When the people saw legal prohibition as a farce, disruptive of social order and a source of official corruption, they promptly discarded it. In our own day, the U.S. and most of the world are experiencing a moral nausea from public, over-exposure to permissive sexual behavior. If History fulfills its promise, reasonable control will follow. Until then, the unreasonable paradox will remain.
Should the people of the U.S. not hope for an ending of the most nauseous scandal of our nation's history, the deliberate killing of our brothers and sisters who are waiting to be born! Whether the world would follow our example of restoring our moral integrity, that remains to be seen. The time of waiting to see will not be long, because the U.S. has begun to awaken from its moral slumber and is beginning to taste the bitterness of the forbidden fruit. Then the paradox will become only a sad memory of something never to be repeated in the history of the world. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: Human cloning - Why not? The same tired old arguments are being used to deny this possibility. Remember they were used against organ and heart transplants. They were used against splitting the atom and again against "in vitro fertilization." The use of organs from pigs was declared "not natural" by many. As each was accomplished there were rationalizations that had to be made. I personally believe that such will be the case when the verified human clone arrives. Science will continue to do the unbelievable. Let's learn to live with it.
Reply: I appreciate your comment because it invites me to propose the radical difference between the examples which you cite and what is offered as human cloning. The difference is this: In your examples, repair is made with substitute, compatible materials, but the original design of the human being is not changed by the process of that repair. Human cloning would require changing the original design. The former is within human competence; the latter is not.
At one time, insulin from the packing-house was a substitute for the insulin which a human produces in his or her own pancreas. It's use does not change the human nature of the user. Nor the insulin produced synthetically, today, in the laboratory in any way modify the nature of its user. May I suggest that the examples you have listed are of this kind. "In vitro fertilization," for example, merely changes the locale of fertilization, not the nature of what results from it.
As for splitting the atom, radioactivity is a process occurring spontaneously in nature, which demonstrates the frangibility of at least some of the atoms, such as of the element uranium. In 1917 Ernest Rutherford artificially initiated radioactivity in the laboratory. Since atoms, contrary to their Greek name, "unable to be cut," are able to be fractured, artificial radioactivity is not contrary to nature.
The original design of a human being requires a non-material principle of life, a human soul (Section 3). A biologist can manipulate body parts, but no sum of body parts will ever equal a human being. There must be more than body to enable a human being to know abstractions such as goodness, beauty and truth, which are beyond the senses to perceive. If a human were only a body, how could he or she choose to give up bodily life in order to uphold those non-material values?
Cloners cannot add this non-material element to the body parts with which they are working, however reassembled, since it is not at their disposal, and without it, they cannot produce a human being. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Commentary on the Clonaid report:
Recent events covered by the press have re-ignited the human clone controversy. Soon, ABC News will be the mediator and guarantor of the process of validating the investigation into the claim that a human baby has been cloned. They aired a story on it last week where they said in the introduction that cloning was a natural process and that the existence of twins was an example of nature’s cloning. It was announced today that the ABC News science editor was going to be the mediator who will chose independent experts to find out if the claim is true. This is a suspicious beginning to what will undoubtedly be a story that will catch the attention of many viewers.
First, I will suggest that the Clonaid/Raeliens’ claim is false. Cloning of humans will never be accomplished because it is outside of the plan of creation. The thing that sets humans apart from all of the other animals is our human soul. If the Raeliens don’t recognize the existence of the soul, it is for a good reason. They say that aliens created man and they say that man can duplicate the process by cloning other humans. But, not without a human soul, they can’t! Where would the soul for the “clone” come from? God, the Creator of the Universe, is not likely to change the original design of something so important as human reproduction, just to satisfy the ambition of a few of his mindless creatures.
Many reputable scientists have already gone on record as saying that science is not capable, at this point in time, of making a human clone. Other experts in the field of animal cloning have said that the road to clone a human, if taken, will be a grizzly one similar to animal cloning. And, who would doubt them? They are the most accomplished in the field. So, why would a national news agency stake its reputation on such an enterprise? Could it be ratings or a blind attempt to be the preferred source for Cloneaid or its philosophical mentor the Raelian religious sect if the results of the tests are inconclusive or erroneously positive? If so, then we can expect a feeding frenzy among the networks as they compete for tidbits of the story and try to cover all of the angles.
It remains to be seen what it will do for ABC News. I would suspect that, at this time, they are considering all of the alternatives such as how to minimize their losses if things get nasty.
The cloners have their agenda planned and laid out before them. They will lead with sympathy for the “clone” and its “parent.” The ultimate object of this exercise is to get as much sympathy for “clones” as possible. When all of this dies down again, they will have more recognition for their “religion” and for the Clonaid enterprise. They will also have more money in the form of contracts from lonely people or others who will be exploited.
The Raelian sect will be served too with sympathy for their beliefs. No doubt, their next exploit will be to try to pass themselves off as aliens; and, no doubt, they are watching the world societies and their appetite for this novelty. Look for the announcement to come at a moment of uncertainty and vulnerability, such as now. B.T. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
____________________
Comment: For those who may be disturbed by the Raelians' report, I agree with the Commentary of Jan. 1st, that human cloning is not likely ever to occur. The reason is quite simple: Two pieces of body material, however highly specialized they may be, are not capable of developing into a human being. Even the two reproductive cells in human reproduction, the sperm and the ovum, are not sufficient of themselves, to explain the non-material behavior of the human offspring: the grasping of abstract concepts and motivation by non-material objectives. Humans can know goodness, beauty and truth, and can willingly give up their bodily lives to preserve these non-material values.
Neither parents nor cloners can supply the non-material principle which vitalizes the matter which they offer for human reproduction. The non-material principle of human life, the human's soul, must come from outside their capability to provide. The human soul can come only from the Creator; it is not a man-made thing. It is not to be assumed that the Author of Nature will provide a human soul to suit the fancy of those who see nothing more in a human being than flesh, bone and blood, nothing other than which they see in the lesser animals.
Dolly, the cloned sheep, is quite different from a human being. It manifests no non-material activity which would demand a non-material soul. Its "material-only" activity can be explained by the material contributions of an ovum, deprived of its nucleus, and the nucleus of a somatic cell, both carrying some element of the animal life of the organisms from which they had been taken to vitalize the new animal called Dolly.
"In vitro fertilization" for reproduction of human beings, though not normal, is not beyond the intentions of nature's Author. Unlike cloning, which would be unnatural for human reproduction, "in vitro fertilization" is not biologically different from what occurs in natural reproduction. The only difference is in the place in which fertilization occurs. E.R. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
____________________