Fetal Life and Abortion:
Human Personhood at Conception
____________________
Displayed Responses 2002
Displayed Responses 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008
2002
December 16th: Something for Christmas!
December 10th: "Women can do it now..." What about "the father's right to choose?"
December 5th: What was the "Roe" court trying to do?
November 27th: The Michigan Kurr case could challenge Roe v. Wade!
November 21st: A Bible-approach to human life in the womb
November 12th: Attention, world!
November 6th: Cloning - What is at the center of the crowd?
October 25th: Will an election save the pro-choice agenda?
October 21st: Abortion's unreasonable nature
October 14th: To students: On legalizing immoral acts
October 6th: Roe v. Wade's unethical foundation
September 30th: Has Roe v. Wade become the new cornerstone of American justice?
September 22nd: Are the Senatorial Democrats becoming a one-issue majority?
September 15th: Nature supplies the husband's right to protect his baby!
September 8th: Students protest the war against the unborn?
September 2nd: "Roe" should have asked the students
August 26th: More on a father's rights
August 19th: A father's rights: Nature vs. Civil Law
August 10th: Did the Court have jurisdiction over a father's natural rights?
August 3rd: When will legalized abortion be discarded?
July 28th: Yes, the mother hurts too!
July 22nd: Human Cloning and Legislation - The Ethics Factor
July 13th: How much of the killing does "Roe" guarantee?
July 5th: Integrity of the U.S. Constitution aborted by "Roe"
June 29th: The same person before and after birth
June 23rd: Are legislatures always right?
June 8th: Editor's note:
June 3rd: Reply to "What are we 'not getting?'"
May 24th: What are we "not getting?"
May 18th: Stem-cells and cloning revisited - moral and biological concerns
May 13th: Why did they agree to hear Roe v. Wade?
May 6th: What the baby suffers during an abortion
April 27th: Justice White had it right!
April 15th: An unethical decision!
April 8th: Abortion - it doesn't make sense!
March 31st: "Not fully human" - arbitrarily condemned to die
March 25th: Resource material for a term-paper
March 18th: Does abortion go with the territory?
March 13th: Correspondence on the Irish Referendum
March 10th: Ireland had a referendum: why don't we?
March 1st: Consequences of the proposed amendment of the Irish Constitution
February 24th: Euthanasia - the final culture-modification of the "Brave New World"
February 17th: Is "Nero" fiddling while "Rome" burns?
February 10th: Roe v. Wade is not American!
February 2nd: Does Roe v. Wade dictate the care of the prematurely born?
January 27th: Is abortion a worldwide "culture?"
January 22nd: 29th Anniversary - Roe must go!
January 14th: It started with the Supreme Court, 1973
January 7th: Asexual production of humans?
January 2nd: The Parliament of Ireland and the beginning of human life
Editor's Note: Something for Christmas!
On a daily basis, in our own small way, "unbornperson.org" speaks about life and death: the life of the unborn, the death of the unborn; conception and abortion. We do this in the midst of a culture which accepts the grotesque contradiction of producing life only to destroy it.
Christmas has a way of causing each of us to pause and ask ourselves, honestly, "What do other people mean to me?" Christmas prompts us to feel closer to some of our fellow humans and, sometimes, closer to all. By identifying ourselves with certain persons with whom we feel comfortable, it may be ourselves whom we are seeking to satisfy. Yet, the traditional spirit of Christmas is to reach out, to be something to others. We accomplish this through the giving of gifts and good-wishes. In this way we give something of ourselves to the other, even if only to the extent of wishing our fellow humans to be well and happy.
Abortion contradicts the spirit of Christmas. It takes unfair advantage of another to satisfy one's own choice. Abortion is not a gift to enrich another's life; it is the stealing of all which the other possesses, life itself.
The spirit of Christmas is a spirit of joy: parents finding joy in nurturing their children, and neighbors finding joy in assisting them whenever there is need, all experiencing joy through living their lives in conformity to, and in harmony with, their genuine humanity.
On a level above nature, Christmas is a birthday, the celebration of a Gift to us from our Creator. Respect for all human life is a reciprocation for that Gift, because that Gift is Life. That Gift came to us in the form of a baby. We must nurture our children, born and unborn, in such a way that the love we give them throughout the year may reflect the Gift of Life which we receive at Christmas.
If there is sadness in one's life because of having experienced abortion, Christmas is a time for healing and for moving from the past into the future. Reparation can be made by celebrating life through helping others, young and old, to treasure their lives even in the midst of difficulties and opposition. Advocacy for those waiting to be born would be a prime example.
"Happy Christmas!" for you and your little ones, and a "Joyful New Year!"
____________________
Question: i agree with everything you guys are saying but the fact is women can do it now
but what do u guys think of the fathers right to choseReply: Your question is an interesting one. However I can only speculate on the outcome, if fathers would demand the choice of aborting their unborn babies. At the outset, I would suggest that men would stand a lesser chance of persuading the Supreme Court to consider their plea than was accorded the women by the Roe v. Wade court. Men do not have a "Men's Lib." to bend the culture away from commonsense and into the morass of emotional persuasion. Nor would the mistaken gallantry of the Court toward the "disadvantaged" gender likely find equal appeal in the petition of their fellow males.
Although the father is not mentioned in "Roe," the father may not defend his baby's life. He does not stand out from among those who may not interfere with the mother's decision. With this in mind, it is not likely that the daring gallantry of approval for the mother's disposal of the baby would ever be extended to the male parent. It would not make sense, in the context of the Court's unbalanced vision of what is involved in abortion. They see abortion as something involving only the woman.
If the above observation seems unfair and cynical, let me explain its purpose. I am not unaware of the reality that childbearing is more of a "burden" to the mother than to the father, at least in the sense of bodily involvement. I see more in "Roe" than this physical aspect of pregnancy. I see an attempt on the part of the Court to manipulate difference-of-gender from what is natural, to give it a court-determined status: in this instance, by encouraging antagonism between a mother and her baby and encouraging the abandonment of responsibility by the baby's father.
The price of this maneuver is the deaths of 40 million of our unborn babies and the social disorder rising from the disarranged lives of their parents and other members of their families. Concerned citizens of our nation also suffer from the declining social standard set by their government. The natural concepts of marriage and family, the basis of human society, have been replaced by the ideology of the Court.
In ancient Rome, where men were the lawmakers, the father was privileged by the customs of "Paterfamilias" to kill his offspring; in our day it is the mother. As the ill-fated cigarette commercial used to say it: "Yes, baby, you've come a long way!"
Let us hope that, sometime soon, the commonsense of both women and men will over-ride the extravagances of the Court. Then our nation can begin to live again! E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: In the case of Roe v. Wade, do you think that the courts were constrained to make significant public policy or not? Were the courts constrained doctrinally, institutionally, or culturally?
Reply: It is my opinion that the "Roe" court aimed at establishing a change in public policy, in response to what they perceived to be a change in the nation's culture.
In reading what follows, you should keep in mind that the Supreme Court prides itself on being the living Constitution, not merely a Constitution frozen in time.
"We, the people," during the past century had given protection to the unborn by having criminalized abortion. Now, "We, the people," in the eyes of the Court, were clamoring to remove that protection. The Court, seeing the Constitution as the will of the people, seems to have disregarded the original Constitution, in favor of the articulated will of the current generation. In their haste to up-date the Constitution, the Court failed to see that the clamor arose, not from the majority of the people, but from a mere handful of opportunistic revolutionaries.
In the years immediately prior to Roe v. Wade, we had become a permissive society. "Do your own thing!" had been the rebellious norm of individual behavior, progressing into institutional behavior and, possibly, influencing the behavior of the Court.
I cite here, from among many, peculiarities of the Court, a few examples: In ample time before the 1973 decision was handed down by the Court, the plaintiff;, Jane Roe, was no longer seeking an abortion. She had carried her child to term and entrusted her to others, by adoption. Under normal circumstances, the Court would have terminated the case, as moot, since there was no longer a cause for complaint. But the "Roe" court did not desist in pursuing their action. Did the Court have a mission to fulfill? They continued the case, it would seem, to favor all women in the country who might, forever, be seeking abortions. They accomplished this by prohibiting the states from interfering with the mother's choice to abort her baby.
Equally revealing is the Court's disregard of a fundamental principle of ethics: After admitting their ignorance about the beginning of a human being's life, they proceeded to sanction the killing of what they knew could be human beings. They covered this breach of ethics by speaking of "potential human beings," an expression which has no correspondence to anything in the real world of nature.
By an inexcusable error in reasoning, the "marital privacy" of a previous case, called "Griswold," was illogically tailored by the Court into a "right to privacy." It is this fabrication in "Roe" which protects the maternal parent's choice of killing her unborn baby. The two cases have nothing substantial in common. Nor is there any Constitutional basis for the newly contrived "right to privacy." The Court themselves admit that. The closest they could approach the Constitution to locate such a "right" was in the "fringes of the shadows" of that otherwise revered document.
And something must be said about the Court's total disregard of the paternal parent's right to fulfill his natural obligation to defend his baby's life, in the face of the mother's "right" to dispose of their baby. Does this not indicate the single-mindedness of the Court? The unborn "potential human," as they termed the baby, and the father were given no serious consideration by the Court.
Did the Court's preoccupation with the mother leave women, and the rest of the nation, better off because of Roe v. Wade? Has it improved our culture? Does it even reflect our culture? I suggest giving the full membership of "We, the people" an opportunity to answer those and similar questions, without interference from the Court.
You may read Roe v. Wade, verbatim, here. If you wish to consider our commentary, read Section 9, from our text material. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's Note: A legal case, profoundly significant to the pro-life cause, is pending in the state of Michigan. We present here only the details necessary for understanding what the case involves, for the benefit of our viewers who would like to give it some thought:
A woman, Jaclyn Kurr, was pregnant with quadruplets, fathered by her boyfriend, Antonio Pena. After several episodes of domestic violence, at about four months into the pregnancy, they were quarreling about his cocaine habit. He violently punched her, twice, in the abdomen. Fearing more blows, she reached for a knife and struck him, fatally, in the chest. At her trial, she pleaded defense of her babies ("defense of others") as her motive in the slaying. The judge did not honor her plea, saying that the babies were not yet viable and, therefore, not to be considered as "others," that is, fellow human beings.
The Appeals Court evidently is sympathetic with her plea. They overturned the lower court's decision for lack of instruction to the jury on "the defense of others" as a legitimate plea. There is a possibility now that the case could go to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Commentary: The key question here will be the relationship between viability and the humanity of the unborn, whether viability has any relevance to humanity. The secondary question will be whether Roe v. Wade would have standing in this case, or would this case be settled on its own merits. As to Roe v. Wade, there are two questions: whether the Supreme Court declared that the non-viable fetus is not a human person and, if so, was the Court competent to have made such a judgment?
We invite our viewers to comment on the probable consequences of the decision of Michigan's Supreme Court, should they accept the case and rule favorably on Kurr's initial plea. We suggest emphasis on the possibly changed status of Roe v. Wade, demanding its review. We suggest, further, the possible limiting of the U.S. Supreme Court's jurisdiction over issues such as the beginning of a human being's life. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: I agree with your posting of Nov. 12th. People should know that part of our future is already with us, though not yet born. We should take care of them instead of allowing even one of them to be killed. You speak of churches to help with this. Christian churches should help because we believe that our Redeemer came to earth through the pregnancy of his virgin mother, Mary. Life in the womb is real and just as important to God's plan and to our society as any other human life elsewhere.
Reply: Many thanks for sharing your faith perception with us! I am confident that there is no conflict between faith and good science, which demonstrates human life in the womb. Another viewer cited an incident, portrayed in the Bible, wherein Jesus and John, both yet unborn, recognized one another at the meeting of their mothers, Mary and Elizabeth. (Luke 1, 39-45)
The problem faced in our Nov. 12th publication is more complex than appears on the surface. You have expressed well the need for social consciousness and concern for our unborn. The problem deepens when individuals proclaim that, in their particular cases, the killing is necessary, the lesser of two evils, etc. Their comfort in taking action is, of course, Roe v. Wade.
The simple solution here is to get rid of that court decision. To accomplish this, however, the moral climate of our nation's culture must be improved. We will have good laws and good decisions only when we have a majority of good people in the nation, a cross-section of whom will formulate those laws and those decisions. On Nov. 12th we were making a beginning in that direction, by placing family life and human reproduction in its proper place of dignity in our culture, to transform that culture into a culture of life, rather than of death. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's Note: It is encouraging to see that the international community is beginning to make a stand on respect for human life, with emphasis on the unborn of our community. Attempts at cloning humans is being vigorously debated and strong opposition has developed against it. The banning of destructive fetal experimentation is also a priority of many nations. It is hoped that these conscientious measures will prevent our culture of life from slipping into the culture of death.
We've muddied the waters; we've soiled the skies.
What else to destroy before the planet dies?
We've tattered the fringes; now for the heart!
We'll kill off the people; we've made the start.We've sold our future to sustain abortion;
Cannibalized our unborn beyond distortion.
We'll replace the blueprint with one of our own!
Then await the harvest of the seeds we have sown.Comment: Cultural revolutions, during the time of their development, go through cycles of emphasis, a basic direction, but zig-zagging on their lengthy way to their goal. Our pro-life movement, stimulated by moral persuasion, began with political action, aided by education, and with aid for those with distressful pregnancies. Declining success with political action gave way to public witness, culminating in Operation Rescue. The point of emphasis, up to this time, had been the life of the child waiting to be born.
With the absence of notable success in saving unborn babies, the child, inadvertently, seemed to have become secondary to a growing concern for the abortion-minded mother of the child. At this point, our pro-life effort, mistakenly, appeared to blend in with that of the pro-choice propaganda, the woman as victim, sorrowfully and thoughtfully, making her difficult choice. The reality, of course is that our pro-life intention was to save both the child and the mother, not to emphasize the mother at the cost of the child. The erroneous perception might have a comfort to the abortion-minded community but it was, by no means, a concession to their strategy.
And, so, points of emphasis mark the history of a social movement. Perhaps the zig-zagging is necessary, not only so that experience may be of profit to the movement, but that the stimulus of novelty might keep the movement going. Frustration and fatigue have a way of entering into any prolonged human effort. Points of emphasis eventually blend together and work simultaneously, since they are not in conflict with one another. Yet, at any moment, they color the movement in the eyes of the casual observer.
The above observation leads us to the probability that it is time for our pro-life movement to re-emphasize the child's dignity and worth, continuing quietly all the other good practices of our resourceful history.
A perspective: The bedrock of our pro-life position is the firm conviction that each human individual begins his or her personal life at conception and, therefore, has an inalienable right to life thereafter.
There are some citizens of the United States who, having a Supreme Court's decision to reinforce their position, disagree with our pro-life grasp of reality. How can we best persuade them to consider and, eventually, to embrace our brothers and sisters who are waiting to be born?
At the level of public opinion, in a time when mental and moral disciplines are in decline, it is our opinion that the best teaching is by way of lived-example. "Actions speak louder than words!" How, then, shall we teach respect for human beings living in the womb? We suggest celebrating the lives of our brothers and sisters currently in the wombs of their mothers, just as we do for all other members of our human community.
We propose that social consciousness needs to be raised to a higher level of awareness concerning that part of our community of human persons who are waiting to be born. At the present time, only the parents and their other children know, and rejoice, that a new member of the human community has come into existence. The family maintains this consciousness by mutual support and by joyfully anticipating the birth of their new family member.
It is suggested here that the whole world should know and rejoice at the conception of every human being and, enthusiastically, assist the new member of our society, and his or her parents, should there be need. That is because all of us are a family, in the plan of our Creator. We all feel the truth of the expression: "It takes the entire village to raise a child." But we know that, in practice, the scope of this beautiful saying encompasses only the child already born. Why not also the child waiting to be born!
The gist of this proposal is that respect for human life before birth could be taught to our society by celebrating that life on a daily and neighborly basis. We feel that when such appreciation will be in place, legalized abortion would be ended.
To implement the proposal, we suggest that the first "reaching out" beyond the immediate family could be contact with the family's church community. They could be invited to participate in the inter-uterine life of the newcomer to their community. The parents who would wish to be involved in this program would announce the conception, and whenever there is a special need, briefly report on the gestational progress of their child. The faith-community would respond with prayers of petition and thanksgiving for the welfare of the child and family, and with praise to our Creator who lovingly shares his power of creation with us, through parenthood.
It is reasonable to assume that practicing this proposal in the churches would help others in our society also to become aware of the unborn members of our community and of their rightful place of dignity among the rest of us. As a society, we could learn to practice respect for every unborn member of our community, our own and our neighbor's and, eventually, all who are waiting to enrich our society by their birth. The dumpster would no longer be needed as a "solution" to the individual's "problem," which had now become also the shared-responsibility and privilege of the community.
For those of our society who may not be persuaded by faith and religious practice, we propose a process of reasoning, leading toward awareness and acceptance of Natural Law. Natural Law is the promulgation of our Creator's will, through human intelligence, sometimes called commonsense. On behalf of the unborn, we invite all, believers and non-believers, to look over this web site into the reality of the human being's personhood, from the time of conception, and the consequent ethical obligation of respecting his or her right to life.
Perhaps it would be helpful here to recall the ancient Chinese custom of giving the child, at birth, the age of one year. We see here that the truth concerning the unborn members of our human society had prevailed in the past. It might well prevail again! We should be eager to lay the groundwork for that cultural revolution in our own time. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
_____________________
Question: The world-community is concerned with the possible contamination and destruction of the human race through the cloning of humans. International efforts are already under way to prohibit
reproductive-cloning (introducing human clones into our society) which would allow entry of permanent unnatural factors into the human gene-pool. I agree with this effort. In fact, I see it as a moral obligation. However, I cannot understand the approval of experimental-cloning (producing human clones as tissue and organ banks for the use of the society) by these same people. Does not this also
endanger the genetic purity of the human race since structures as small as cells have a way of getting misplaced in a laboratory?
Reply: It is our position, sustained over the past two years of the cloning-frenzy, that human clones are not likely, ever, to be produced (See: Human cloning - unlikely!). However, I will try to assist you with your question.
After a brief review, I find that I do not know enough about the technology of cell-manipulation to answer your question concerning the risk of genetic contamination from experimenting with clones. From what I see, your very reasonable anxiety is expected to be alleviated by the mandated killing of the clone, within fourteen days of its existence. If I were concerned about this issue, my own anxiety would not be very much relieved by such a superficial arrangement.
Although your question does not address the issue, it prompts me to wonder about the alarming erosion of a traditional concept: that the individual human is an autonomous individual and not a possession of the crowd. Behind your question is concern for the crowd, with no consideration for the individual, embryonic human, whose life is demanded as a necessary step in the process of the cloning experiment.
The sharply defined beginning of this moral erosion is the advent of legalized abortion: the individual may be killed by another individual by "permission" of the crowd. The crowd is superior to the individual. In this sense, in the United States, Roe v. Wade has been the first hammer-strike for crushing humanity at its roots. However, after thirty years, there is hope! At the present time the Administration is setting up a justice system to care for the rights of our brothers and sisters
who are waiting to be born. The Supreme Court decision, of 1973, will eventually be eradicated, but its lesson must remain as a broken monument to the absurdity of self-destruction.
For the welfare of other countries, I suggest an absolute embargo against the import of that destructive hammer. I would hope that the European Union will cease demanding of the lesser nations its destructive presence as a condition of their support.
For those who are concerned about the possible genetic contamination of the crowd, I would advise them to undertake a world-wide, firm stand against legalized abortion and against all destructive, fetal experimentation. I would, further, plead with them to restore the human individual to his or her rightful place in the plan of human society, at its very center! Your place and my place, in our Creator's plan for our individual and social welfare, is not the trash-bin of the experimenter's laboratory. E.R. reply@unbornperson.orgTop
____________________Comment: Recently, I read a column in the Dallas Morning News, written by a woman who believes the pro-choice option will survive only if women would wake up at this election time and vote. I think she is failing to see the big difference between thirty years ago and now. Then it was "cool" for young women to look down on motherhood and family as they pursued a career in the market-place. They accepted abortion as a means of removing obstacles in their path.
The writer is trying to wake up women who are fewer in number than thirty years ago. Since that time, one-third of all female babies conceived in the U.S. were aborted; they never got to become pro-choice voters. Also many women who had endorsed the pro-choice agenda during those thirty years have abandoned it. Often that is because they are experiencing the flip-side of abortion, known as post-abortion syndrome. They will not be voting pro-choice either.
Reply: As something intimately related to the inner workings of a woman's consciousness, truth about abortion is a valuable possession. It is good for a person to know things as they are! I am in full sympathy with what seems to be your conclusion, that the pro-choice era will end with women's choosing to discard it. I would suggest that its demise will come about because truth, even the gut-feeling kind of truth, is more persuasive than the unrealistic and euphemistic dream of those who attempt to redesign the nature of things to suit their own fancies.
As evidence that women are awakening to the self-deception of "Women's Lib" and as an indicator of things to come, I see obstetricians besieged for assurance that child-bearing is still feasible for women older than previously estimated. I think of this as an example of women striving to reclaim their womanhood. If I may echo the message of your comment: They will not be voting pro-choice either. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's Note: It is encouraging to note that most people who have thought about it, agree with our position, as presented in our last week's posting: IT IS UNREASONABLE FOR PARENTS TO KILL THEIR UNBORN OFFSPRING, SINCE ABORTION IS CONTRARY TO NATURE'S DESIGN FOR REPRODUCTION. Some persons, however, object to our position by claiming that certain circumstances present a reasonable choice of over-riding the nurturing inclination of nature, by abortion. We invite the viewers to examine this objection with us:
Comment: The objection presupposes that there are "goods" greater in value than the life of the unborn offspring. This supposition can take two forms, by under-valuing the life of the offspring, or by over-valuing the apparent "good." Both of these approaches are faulty, because they attribute only a relative value to the offspring's life. The human being has an absolute value, as indicated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal and have an inalienable right to life.
As for under-valuing the offspring, it should not be necessary to examine the claim of those who do not admit to the humanity of the offspring. Frozen embryos are protected by law, not only because they represent someone's "property," but because, when implanted, they continue to mature as do all other human beings and, so, should not have their humanity questioned. How much, more so, should embryos brought about by normal conception be recognized as human beings.
As for over-valuing the "goods" that are offered as justification for abortion, it should be noted that those "goods" usually "benefit" one, or both, of the parents, at the cost of the unborn offspring's life. In no instance can such "benefits" be equated with the right to life which is inherent in the human offspring. Even the mother's right to life does not exceed that of her offspring's. If anyone is confused on this point, I would suggest an examination of the phrase: "except to save the life of the mother." This exception is found in the laws of the individual states of the U.S. which were in force prior to 1973.
It should be observed carefully that this exception does not say that the offspring may be killed in order to save the mother's life. No innocent human being may be killed, even to save many lives. The exception covers difficult situations in which saving the mother's life will be the occasion of her offspring's death, as when a ruptured Fallopian tube containing an ectopic pregnancy must be removed from her body. There is no direct attack on the innocent life, even though the death can be foreseen. The surgical procedure is initiated as the only means of saving her life. At the moment of initiation, her offspring's life had not been in the process of being lost. The mother needed immediate help; her offspring did not. SEE the ethical principle "double-effect."
With these added elements of discussion in place, I invite students to continue thinking about legalized abortion as an example of a civil law in opposition to Ethics, which is sometimes called the science of reasonable behavior." I ask the students to keep in mind that this discussion is not merely academic; it pertains to the way things are. It is my feeling that the young people of the world deserve something better than the injustice and falsehood found at work in the society which they are about to inherit. I also feel that there will be no major ethical improvement in their generation, unless they, the students, are willing to bring it about. Fortunately there is a trend in that direction and, in that, there is hope. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's Note: We wish to address students, world-wide, on the subject of legalizing practices which are hurtful to innocent human life and, therefore, morally evil. We will discuss what has already been legalized and that which is projected for the future. Abortion will be our first example. The purpose of our discussion is to alert students to the moral flaws of our society, whose future will soon be in their hands.
Elements of Discussion: Many years of teaching at various academic levels have given me a great respect for students who seek objective standards in their academic pursuits, and who also hold themselves to objective standards of human conduct. Most students with whom I have worked are of that moral fiber. On behalf of students such as these, I do not hesitate to affirm the distinction between good and evil; between right and wrong.
I would go further and affirm their acceptance of good and evil as objective realities and not merely as arbitrarily designated things to be done and things to be avoided, subject to change with social fancy. What is commended here is the unhampered human intelligence and the fully free exercise of choice: the intellect seeking and obtaining its proper object, that which is true, and the human will doing the same towards its proper object, that which is good.
To possess truth is to know things as they are. Being truthful demands objectivity. In contrast, knowledge which is colored by the individual, consciously or unwittingly, to suit his or her situation of the moment, is subjective fantasy and is not truthful. The same with choices and consequent actions; they can be good only insofar as their objects are objectively good.
As a definition of "good," it is sufficient to say that the design of our Creator is the measure of good. Any deliberate act which fits into that design is morally good. Any deliberate act contrary to that design is morally evil.
I suggest here that the object of an intended act may be good, such as giving financial help to a poor family, but that the act itself could be evil, as when the gift is stolen money.
It must be said now that the individual person, through human intelligence, after arriving at the age of reason, is able to distinguish right from wrong, commensurate with the person's age and experience.
Finally, it must be noted that the subjective elements of one's action influence the culpability of failure to measure up to the dictates of intellectual judgment, sometimes called "conscience." Uninvited obstacles to clear thinking and to freedom of choice are examples of such extenuating circumstances.
Looking at abortion objectively, that is, without prejudice, it would be seen as an unreasonable act, and one contrary to the pursuit of the good. Stated simply, it does not make sense for parents to kill their own offspring. Abortion is contrary to the tendency of nature, sometimes called the nurturing instinct. For humans, of course, there is more than instinct; there is a felt sense of obligation, called responsibility. Since abortion is contrary to nature it is, therefore, contrary to the design of nature's Author, constituting a moral evil.
Looking at abortion subjectively, as by abortion providers and, sometimes, by legislators and judges, abortion may appear as a "good," though only as "a necessity" or "a claim to compassion" or as "the lesser of two evils."
With the few elements of discussion mentioned above, I invite student viewers to comment on the legalization of abortion and its effects on the well-being of the nation which protects it by law. For students in the U.S. it would be helpful to review the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, followed by our comments, in Section 9, and the comments of others, in Section 5. Students from other countries may wish to examine the foundation of their laws which approve of abortion. Together we may be able to awaken our common, human society to the unjust, absurd and damaging practice of legalizing abortion. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's Note: While the courts debate the outcome of New Jersey's replacement in the federal senate, we continue to ask whether the democrats in the U.S. Senate have made Roe v. Wade their political priority. If so, we would like to show them the hollowness of their prize. In this writing, we choose to comment on a glaring breach of Ethics which underlies that abortion decision.
Comment: The Roe v. Wade court clearly and somewhat dramatically stated that they do not know when human life begins. Despite this admission of ignorance, they proceeded to authorize the killing of the unborn of human parentage, aware of the possibility that those unborn might be human beings. Ethically, this makes the Court responsible for the deaths of those, if any, human beings. May I quote the Court:
From U.S. Supreme Court Reports, 35 L Ed 2nd, [27]: "Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
I would ask our viewers whether the alleged ignorance of everyone else excuses the Court from facing the issue of "when life begins." Should this not have been the key issue of their unique deliberation over whether mothers may legally kill their unborn offspring.
I ask our viewers, also, to decide whether the Court should have proceeded, in face of their uncertainty, to authorize the killings, which now number about fifty-million. I remind the viewers that, even to this day, the Court has not demonstrated the non-humanity of the unborn, at any stage of gestational development. Their unethical practice is applied even against those who are unquestionably human beings, as in the case of partial-birth abortion.
In the framework of ethical reasoning, the Court has authorized the killing of innocent human beings. In this they are also outside of the then existing civil law which protected human beings by due process of law. Further, that Court has authored an inhumane fiction, that our country has no Constitutional obligation to protect the lives of our unborn.
If any viewer might feel that the Court had reasons to justify the killing, such as the claims of "women's rights," I would ask for a reasonable demonstration of how those claims can be equated to the value of a human life.
This is Roe v. Wade, as I see it. Should its preservation be given a high priority, whether by way of misguided, political ideology? Or for any other, less esteemed political purpose? May I say that all the citizens of this land "of liberty and justice for all" should rise up and banish it forever! E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's Note: The conflict in the U.S. Senate over the filling of vacancies in the federal judiciary, in our opinion, is rooted in the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. Divisive from the beginning, that decision and its key progeny, "Webster," "Casey" and "Nebraska" have disruptingly invaded the delicate process of justice throughout our nation. Legalized abortion has become a classical example of "the tail wagging the dog."
Reply: It seems ironic that justices, in rendering decisions favorable to abortion, have put their counterparts who would have succeeded them "out of business." The U.S. presently has fifteen percent of its federal judiciary vacant. Justice in the land has been made captive to the vagaries of political idealism.
Roe v. Wade has been characterized by Constitutional experts as bereft of Constitutional foundation, fabricated as an instrument of social engineering. The Court, themselves, in 1992, through "Casey," (Gov. Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania) demonstrated the weakness of its original decision, by defending Roe v. Wade with two curious arguments. I phrase them here in my own words, followed by the words of Supreme Court Reporter:
1. The women of the country have become accustomed to having abortion available for maintaining their lifestyles and as insurance against contraceptive failure. The Court does not feel itself free to deprive them of it. In this instance the Court is tooling a judicial principle known as "stare decicis" to suit the case on hand. Paraphrasing the expression, it means that what had been approved in the past and is working well in the present should be let stand. In other words: Don't touch "Roe." I will leave it to our viewers to decide whether this instrument of law was applied fairly, in light of the country's deep division on abortion, accompanied by the opposing evidence of many women suffering from post-abortion syndrome. Add to this, the immense volume of new, scientific information, since 1992, concerning the unborn human person.
From Supreme Court Reporter: 10. Abortion and Birth Control -.50 Courts- 90(1) "Reliance on Roe v. Wade rule's limitation on state power required reaffirmance of Roe's essential holding under doctrine of stare dicisis; for two decades of economic and social developments, people organized intimate relationships and made choices that defined their views of themselves and their places in society in reliance on availability of abortion in event of contraceptive failure."
From the Supreme Court Reporter: 13. Abortion and Birth Control - .50 Courts - 90(1) "Neither factual underpinnings of Roe v. Wade, nor Supreme Court's understanding of it, had been changed to such a degree that would warrant overruling decision; present doctrinal disposition to reach
different result was insufficient to warrant overruling."
2. If the Court were to reverse themselves on Roe v. Wade, the country would lose its confidence in its justice system, appearing as though the Court had made a mistake in judgment. It could be hurtful to the nation even for the Court to bring "Roe" up for review. Again, I invite our viewers to measure this position of the Court by the standards of American openness and courage in loyalty to their nation. I offer, further, the citizens' traditional trust in their country, even to the extent of forgiving its faults.
From Supreme Court Reporter: 14. Abortion and Birth Control - .50 Courts - 90(6) "Overcoming Roe v. Wade in response to divisiveness of abortion issue would address error, if error there was, at cost of profound and unnecessary damage to Supreme Court's legitimacy, and to nation's commitment to rule of law; only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to
demonstrate that overruling would be anything other than surrender to political pressure and unjustified repudiation of principle." E.R. reply@unbornperson.org____________________
Question: I have been watching the Democrat majority in our U.S. Senate opposing the Administration's choice of federal judges. This appears to be a conflict about abortion. Abortion proponents have openly admitted that it is, and that their survival depends on it. Each senator should vote according to his or her best judgment. This would distinguish the Senate from the House of Representatives, who vote according to the will of the electorate. What happens when party politics interferes with that legislative structure?
Reply: In the ordinary working of this legislative system, differences between the House and Senate must be settled in conference. However, in the matter of approval for the President's choice of federal judges, the Senate reigns supreme. In this framework, your question about party politics is highly significant.
Since senators are also elected by the people, you would have to admit that they represent the judgment of the people. The political party to which they belong may have a policy about legalized abortion, but not all of its members subscribe to it in every detail. To say the least, it is strange that the Democrats' vote, and the Republicans' also, strictly followed party lines, since the subject of abortion is profoundly divisive throughout the nation, even within the parties.
I would suggest that if the conscientious position of the senator were the same as the party policy, it would be a mere coincidence that he or she should vote the party's line. If, however, the senator were to vote because of party affiliation and not by moral conviction, he or she has failed the system.
You might have been wondering why only the Senate, and not the full legislature, has been entrusted with the appointment of federal judges. Perhaps some viewer might wish to comment on that. It would be helpful also if someone were to comment on the extent to which a legislator should be in agreement with party policy in every vote.
If I may extend your question to something which underlies it, I would suggest an examination of the two positions concerning legalized abortion. I would ask what logical support the senators, Democrat and Republican, offer in defense of their positions on abortion.
Citing your reference to the Democrats, if Roe v. Wade should be their only defense of legalized abortion, I would suggest an examination of that decision. You might wish to start that investigation with the commonsense, gut-feeling that it doesn't make sense for parents to kill their own, unborn babies, nor does it make sense for a nation to sanction that killing of its own future. You may refer to Section 9 for further information on that Supreme Court's decision. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's note: Because of continued interest in the workings of nature as criteria for judging the validity of civil law, we offer the following, brief presentation:
Reply: In my discussion of a husband's right to protect his baby from threatened abortion, I based that right on his obligation as a father, imposed on him by his human nature. His position pertains to what everyone calls responsibility or accountability, which are characteristics of being human.
Was the "Roe" court aware of the husband's natural right to protect his baby; there is no mention of it in the decision? Or did the Court merely assume that his right was inferior to the right of his wife, the baby's mother, to abort their baby? What, then, is the basis of her supposed right; is it something which flows from her human nature and, therefore, essential, or is it an arbitrary choice, which has no foundation in nature? I suggest for your consideration that it does not flow from any promptings of her human nature. Rather it is contrary to the natural inclination of mothers to nurture their babies.
The question, now, is whether any arbitrary choice could be more compelling than a demand of nature. Could a court say, for example, "Immigrants, before becoming citizens, must refrain from eating, drinking and sleeping for a period of two weeks?" A court of law could not make that decision, simply because it would be contrary to what is required by nature and, so, a violation of the immigrant's natural rights.
Seen in this light, the so-called "right" to abort their baby, "granted" to the mother by the Court, is not superior to the natural right of the father to protect their baby's life. The Court has over-ruled the workings of human nature, and the ruling should be reexamined for validity. It should be noted that nature is "a player in the game" and has a voice in its outcome. A wise society will heed that voice of nature; only a foolish one will ignore it. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: I am in college. My parents told me how students' opposition to our involvement in the Viet Nam war helped to solve the conflict. I have been discussing the problem of abortion with three other friends also in college and we have decided that we want to help to restore protection to unborn babies. In your opinion, are there things we could do similar to the war protests of the 1970's that would help the cause?
Reply: First, may I applaud you and your friends for wanting to help the unborn! More than likely you are already familiar with the usual pro-life efforts, and may have participated in such activities while at home. What you seek now, I presume, has to do with your academic opportunities in the classroom.
If my sense of history is correct, student involvement in social reform is driven by ideas of right and wrong with reference to the issue at hand. This makes a fruitful foundation for discussion in an academic environment, because ethical principles are common to all the participants. The discussion would center on the application of those principles to the problem.
Ideas, and the discussion of ideas, are the fuel of action. It has been said that "The pen is mightier than the sword." Words, well-chosen, express ideas which lead to action. Eventually your words might influence the Supreme Court and our federal legislature, to restore justice to the unborn.
Even with four students, the question of human rights, especially the right to life of the unborn, could be raised in your Ethics class. Eligibility for rights could be discussed in other Philosophy classes, especially in Metaphysics. There you could introduce the concept of personhood with special reference to the unborn from the time of conception.
The negative side of your project, the hurtful consequences of abortion, could be voiced in Sociology, for example, the loss of beneficial talent to the society, and the disruptive loss of respect for human life. The injustices of Roe v. Wade could be examined in your Law studies. Disregard of the Creator's design of nature, and its hurtful consequences, could be pondered in Religion.
We invite you to use "unbornperson.org" as a reference, and extend its use to those with whom you speak. The "Table of Contents" and "Displayed Responses" could be helpful. Your questions and comments, and those of your fellow students, will always be welcomed at our web site. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: I wonder what might happen if students in Human Embryology were suddenly told: "...... and you may kill this baby, without criminal prosecution, if you wish." Such a sudden contrast between the beauty of embryonic development and the deliberate destruction of that beauty, would be shocking to the students. Or, would it?
Reply: Students, in the United States, younger than thirty years of age, have not experienced a time when the unborn baby's life was protected by law. But, even so, it is likely that many students would be shocked by your contrast, simply because the students are human beings, and they would be seeing abortion for what it is, an invasion of the sacred. Abortion, perceived even in its biological reality, is contrary to the nature of reproduction, which is preservative and nurturing. The students would reject abortion.
Perhaps you might say that I am not reading your scenario in the sense of the real world. I am not including the pressures and anxieties and the panic of a woman facing a distressful pregnancy. The beautiful and the purposive would not be predominant factors in her equation!
I must admit that your objection would be well taken. However, it is not women with distressful pregnancies who decided Roe v. Wade; it was a court of nine men, who ought to have been guided by reason rather than the emotional persuasion of misguided assistance for women. They ought to have balanced their concern for the woman with a corresponding concern for her child. Their vision of the total reality should have included the awakening experience of the students in your Embryology class.
May I offer an additional observation to my view of "what might have been:" If "Roe" had not spoken there would be fewer abortions as a solution for distressful pregnancies. And that, for two reasons: 1. Other, more humane, solutions would still have been in place to meet the distress. 2. There would be fewer "distressful" pregnancies, just as there would be fewer broken marriages, were it not for legalized breakage, that is, divorce.
Individuals and societies have survived because they have found ways, conformable to their human nature, to survive. Civilizations which opted for pathways contrary to what is reasonable, and fair for everyone, have not survived. Only time can tell whether your students will be representative of one, rather than the other. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's note: Viewers have suggested a continuation of our discussion on a father's right to defend his unborn baby's life threatened by abortion. The point of interest is on the nature of human rights, as distinguished from rights established by civil law. Again, we limit our discussion to those who are married, husband and wife, and their unborn baby.
Reply: I would begin by saying that human rights flow from human obligations. If we, in virtue of our human nature, have a need we also have a corresponding right to whatever is reasonably required to fill that need. My right to life, for example, corresponds to my obligation of self-preservation. Others may not take my life, simply because I need my life in order to fulfill that obligation.
It is necessary here to ask what is meant by "natural needs." This question leads us to the fact that nature is always purposive, and that specific means are necessary to fulfill its purposes. It leads us also to the concepts of responsibility and accountability, as characteristics of our being human.
The purpose of a natural thing, as with an artificial (man-made) thing, is established by its designer. Design is the proportioning of means to end, as in tool-making. Natural things obtain their purpose from the author of nature, namely God. In virtue of our human nature we are designed to make free, but intelligent, choices (choices conformable to our nature, with reference to self and neighbor.) The remaining element of the design is our accountability to God and neighbor for those choices.
Marriage and human reproduction pertain to our human nature, and are governed by its natural design. This is true for the man and wife relationship, called the family, and for the entire society, whose basic unit is the family. From this perspective, the father's right to protect the life of his unborn baby is quite obvious. He, in conjunction with his wife, freely makes the choice of reproduction, which imposes its natural obligations on both parents. Accountable for his choice, he has a right to follow the natural design of human reproduction, whose purpose is a living, nurtured, human offspring, not a dead one.
Good laws and good judicial judgments pertaining to us as humans, ought to conform to the design of our human nature, whether as individuals or as a society. The reasoning here is no different than the wisdom of following the "operations manual" of our new car or computer. Since many laws and judicial decisions govern interpersonal relationships , society should be well informed on what is beneficial and what is hurtful in our treatment of one another. Human intelligence, reflecting the design of God for his creatures (called "Natural Law") is the "yardstick" for evaluating our behavior. Civil Law, as with "Natural Law," should promote beneficial behavior and discourage that which is hurtful. Civil Law must never disregard, or over-ride, the laws of nature with pertain to all of us, as human beings.
With respect to abortion, the husband's right, as husband and father, to prevent the death of their unborn baby, imposes a corresponding obligation on his wife, their baby's mother. She is not free, unilaterally, to destroy their child. This is the issue which Roe v. Wade and its progeny have failed to address.
I do not imply here that abortion is justified by mutual consent of husband and wife. It is not! I am saying that the "Roe" Court has denied the husband his natural right to fulfill his obligation of saving the life of his unborn baby. And I say, further, that this is one of several injustices perpetrated by the Court in that decision. For further reading, you may see Section 9. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's note: In our Response of Aug. 10th, we say that the Supreme Court went beyond its jurisdiction when they legally denied fathers the exercise of their natural right to defend their unborn babies. We would like to expand on that by asking ourselves a question: Do you think that the Supreme Court would accept our claim that nature has its own laws and that they are outside of even the Supreme Court's reach to modify or deny?
Reply: I can only guess whether the "Roe" Court would have given thought to the claims of nature, as being superior to their own. I fear that if the father's rights had come up for consideration, it would have been quickly settled by stating that the father of an unborn baby is, after all, "not a father in the full sense." And that would be the end of that, except nobody would ever know what they meant by that expression. It would be as fully mysterious as their claim that the unborn baby is "not a person in the full sense" and, consequently, may be killed by his or her mother.
Perhaps the present Court, or some future Court, would consider the question of nature's claim vs. man's claim, though it is not the kind of problem usually entertained by modern courts of law. "Laws of nature" evidently are not codified and registered in law libraries. However, they ought to be on the front shelves of every human being's intelligence, in a degree compatible with his or her developmental age.
In the following discussion I wish to limit my remarks to the case of married persons, husband and wife and their unborn baby. Other cases for which the Court has provided legalized abortion are to be excluded from this present writing.
The matter under question could be put quite simply: Does any court of human beings have jurisdiction over laws which are not of human making? In this instance, by the nature of marriage and family life, husband and wife have equal responsibility to protect the life of their unborn baby, since they are equally responsible for their baby's existence. Corresponding to the equality of their obligation, each parent has equal right to whatever is reasonably required for fulfilling his or her obligation pertaining to the welfare of their unborn baby.
In light of this long-standing understanding of nature, the "Roe" Court should be gravely faulted for saying to the wife: "You may kill your unborn baby." and to the husband: "You may not prevent your wife from killing your baby." For the Court to have ignored the partnership participation in marriage, they would have to be faulted either for an incomplete study of the question or for an inadequate sense of human values.
Is it possible that the Court may have looked upon the mother's role in childbearing as being greatly more burdensome than the role of the father, and then translated the comparison into the mother's right to rid herself of the "burden" as superior to the father's right to save their baby's life?
No one would deny that the "biological burden" of parenthood is more physically demanding, on a
24-hour basis, for the mother than for the father. Over-all equality of "burden," however, can be demonstrated by the father's daily job in the workplace, supporting his pregnant wife and their baby, along with other family responsibilities. Different jobs, but equal contributions to the welfare of the unborn baby and the family! Why, then, the unequal favoritism, in this case, the wife's total control over the life and death of their unborn baby?As for the hypothetical position questioning the full fatherhood of the unborn baby's father, let me suggest a simple fact of biology: It is the husband's contributing of a reproductive cell (sperm) actually fusing with the wife's reproductive cell (ovum) producing the zygote (single-celled stage of their offspring) that establishes the husband's fatherhood and the wife's motherhood. And this is fatherhood in the "full sense" of biology's careful presentation of reproduction as the workings of nature.
The wider working of nature in human beings, its psychological and moral aspects with respect to marriage and family, demands the equal dignity and rights of husband and wife. And it demands a nurturing environment for their offspring, not only during pregnancy, but during the entire process of maturing into adulthood.
It is interesting to note that, as I write this, a news service, called "Infonet," reports that a husband in China, starting on Sept. 1st, of this year, will have a legal right equal to that of his wife, to decide the birth or non-birth of their unborn baby. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the alleged basis of this new law is what we have described above, the nature of marriage and family. Granting legal equality to husband and wife (in conformity with the dictates of nature) may be a step in the right direction. However, we must totally disagree with the "legal freedom" of husband and wife, both consenting, to kill their unborn baby. That is directly opposed to the purposive function of nature. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: I have not heard any recent report on the father's right to defend his child under threat of abortion. Do you have anything on that?
Reply: Frustration and discouragement mark the plight of a father who wishes to fulfill this responsibility. Even when he resorts to harsh measures, such as physically blocking the entrance to the abortion chamber, he is not permitted to excuse himself from trespass by saying that he has an obligation to save the life of his baby. His claim of "justification" in whatever course of action he chooses to pursue, has been discredited, on appeal, by various court decisions. That is because Roe v. Wade defines the unborn baby to be "not a person in the full sense." Evidently trespass laws may be set aside to relieve the distress of those who are persons, unless they should be "not persons in the full sense." And as in the case of trespass with the unborn baby as an exception, so also with deliberate killing; the baby waiting to be born is an exception to the law against killing ones neighbor.
Looking back for specifics, I notice that in the year 1988, after ten years of inaction, at least sixteen cases were filed in nine states by fathers, sometimes husbands of the mother, for injunctions to stay the abortion. One permanent injunction and two preliminary injunctions were issued by trial courts that year, all of which were overturned on appeal. The Supreme Court refused to hear those three cases, leaving the rights of fathers to be one of the major issues unresolved by Roe v. Wade and its progeny.
In our own time, in fact in this week's news, there is a story out of Philadelphia wherein a man had obtained a preliminary injunction to restrain the aborting of his baby. Two or three days later, the injunction was dissolved by another judge, leaving the woman free to kill their unborn baby. Ironically, only a day or so later, the woman suffered a natural miscarriage.
There may be instances of fathers who feel unburdened by the legal restraint against defending the lives of their unborn babies. Roe v. Wade "rewards" their irresponsibility. But there are some men who are devastated, in varying degrees, by the Court's unreasonable discrimination against the natural prerogatives of their parenthood, as fathers of their babies..
If I may suggest a fundamental flaw in Roe v. Wade, I would ask the viewer to consider whether the Court has jurisdiction in the matter of denying the father's natural right to defend the life of his baby. In the very nature of parenthood there are equal rights and responsibilities on the part of both parents with respect to the welfare of their baby. The working out of these responsibilities may vary, compatible with gender differences and traditional cultural roles which describe the family. But the right to whatever is reasonably necessary for each parent to fulfill those responsibilities, is the same right for each.
The Court has no jurisdiction for having removed that equality, an equality which belongs to nature, by human right, and not by human discretion. In this unjust process, the Court destroyed the time-honored concept of marriage, which also belongs to the workings of nature and not to human judgment. The partnership clause has been stricken!
There is no evidence that the Court gave much thought to the rights of the father. But this should not free them from accountability for their neglect of a major issue pertaining to justice, individual and social. With the thoughtless pursuit of "granting" the mother unrestricted freedom to kill the baby, the Court toppled the basis of all social structure, the family!
Should any of our viewers wish to comment on this problem, we would welcome any insights on the matter. We feel that the more Roe v. Wade is "spot-lighted" for truth and justice, the sooner will we experience its total collapse. For additional reading, you may refer to our Notable Quotations. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: One kind of atrocity occurring in history is the defilement of one group of people by another, usually by invasion with consequent murder and confiscation of property. Other forms of atrocity occur within the group, as in cases of tyranny and anarchy, conflicts between government and people. In our time individuals within the group, with the help of the government, have undertaken atrocious action against other members of the group. I would speak of this as tyranny, with partial consent of the people. That's how I describe the legalization of abortion.
As a student of History, I am puzzled by this turn of events. I would not know how to predict its outcome, since there is no precedent by which to take its measure. Do you think that legalized abortion will run its course, as capital punishment seems to be doing? Or will all of this stay in place while we make our next attack against our social structure?
Reply: The interaction between the society and the individual is sometimes straight-forward, sometimes contrived. The role of government, as you suggest, becomes more difficult to understand in the case of legalized abortion. As an historian, you probably wonder how the human race has managed to survive until now. Or do you no longer see it as a society, but merely as a matrix of isolated fragments?
In response to your request for an opinion, I am inclined to anticipate further fragmentation, until sheer necessity for survival will require our coming together again. The "Me, first!" and the "Do your own thing!" can be replaced, but not easily nor quickly. Its schedule of progress would be similar to the reform of a spoiled-child. The decision to start is what takes the time.
As you suggest, legalized abortion got started as something quite novel to history. Although Japan and some countries of Eastern Europe had legalized abortion before the United States did, I will limit my comment to U.S. history. After the turmoil of the war years (1941-1945) affluence and self-expression became the climate for social change. The American Law Institute formulated The Model Penal Code, which soon became common among the states of the Union. Through it, the door to legalized abortion was opened. A small number of persons had decided that American women, in limited circumstances, may kill their unborn babies.
Some thirteen states marched through that door, although two of the largest, New York and Pennsylvania, voted to reverse their march, after some distasteful experience with their "freedom." During the interval (1972-1973) the Supreme Court, again a small number of persons, was maneuvering to open the doors of every state to legalized abortion. That was accomplished through Roe v. Wade, on January 22, 1973. Your description of that decision is quite accurate, governmental tyranny, with consent of a part of the people. I have often thought of it as a declaration of civil war.
Twenty-nine and one-half years later, despite heroic efforts on the part of many individuals, society in the U.S. has not restored itself to its former condition of caring for one another, a lesson learned from its historical Civil War. It is now a nation divided against its most defenseless, innocent members, our brothers and sisters who are waiting to be born.
In reply to your question about the ending of legalized abortion, I must respond with a question of my own: "Does this nation, as in the case of reforming the spoiled-child, have the good sense and the courage to start that ending?" E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: I notice that on your web site you often mention how abortion hurts the unborn child but you do not speak of how it hurts the mother. If you could get women who have had abortions to tell their stories, I think that abortion would be done away with.
Reply: I am grateful for your observation! I wish it were more detailed, for the benefit of our viewers. I would agree that there are adverse physical or emotional consequences, or both, in many cases of abortion. If you, or other viewers, might wish to discuss those consequences, please feel free to list them, along with your insights on the subject.
Speaking as a biologist, I offer an explanation which might well be sufficient for most viewers, since it covers many of the problems. When one considers the very delicate and systematic preparation of the mother's body to accommodate every stage of her child's development, one can see why a sudden interruption of the process could be detrimental to the mother, not only physically but also emotionally.
In the normal, natural process of gestation, the mother's body is progressively modified, from the moment of conception, to suit the needs of her child. The modifications are programmed to diminish and disappear when no longer needed. Even before the child is born changes are initiated to restore her body to the pre-pregnant condition. It should be evident here that some of the modifications cannot be "undone" except by the normal completion of the natural process, extending to the time of birth.
To be more specific, let me cite an example: It is probable that the increased incidence of breast cancer, resulting from abortion, could be explained by the "unfinished business" of the endocrine system in preparing the mother for nursing her baby.
To reinforce this line of thinking, it is helpful to remember that the pregnancy is not only for the sake of the child, but is under his or her control. It should not be surprising, then, that when the "controller" is suddenly removed from the scene, things will get "out of control."
In the area of emotional consequences resulting from abortion, there is evidence to show that many women suffer from "post-abortion syndrome," which is characterized by feelings of guilt and regret. Various forms of remedy are provided for their healing, usually centered on forgiveness and reparation. For those who wish to pursue this subject, "Post-Abortion Syndrome" should be helpful for the Internet search. A more particularized study might be found under "Project Rachael." E. R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: The cloning debate is now centered on legislation to establish the legal parameters of experimentation. It seems that all countries will forbid reproductive cloning, expressing a common concern for the welfare of the human race. That part, though considerably motivated by self-interest, is good. In therapeutic cloning, some countries are failing to consider the individual humans who would become mere pawns to be used by others. This part is not good! Already there is too much ethical blindness in the face of individuals being sacrificed for the alleged advantage of the society. If more deeply embedded into our culture, as in legalized abortion, this disregard of the individual's rights will destroy our society.
Reply: May I suggest a few thoughts to show my agreement with your thinking, and which you might wish to add to the process which gave rise to your well-spoken comment. I would have you consider whether our materialistic culture persuades more easily by quantity rather than by quality: "Bigger is better." or "Faster is better!" or "More is better!" or "The society is more important than the individual!" Add to this the exaggerated value of self with reference to other individuals: "Me, first!" and "Do your own thing!" Is it not likely that the quantitative evaluation of "things" tends to produce, as you say, a moral blindness as we pursue "material betterment" for our bodily existence?
As for the threat of cloning humans, it is my opinion that human cloning is unlikely ever to be accomplished (SEE LINK). In light of this opinion, you might wonder why I oppose attempts to clone humans. There are two reasons: From the ethical perspective it doesn't matter whether an unjust objective is possible of attainment. It is in the intention of striving to do the injustice that the culpability lies.
My second objection bears on the destruction which accompanies the attempts at human cloning. The first destruction results from the willingness of experimenters to manipulate what they assume to be human individuals. This is a destruction of the moral fiber of the nations who would sanction attempts at human cloning. It would be nothing less than anarchy by the government against the individual member of the society. Further destructiveness is found in the unwarranted promises of the experimenters. This is a destruction of confidence and trust, because it is often self-serving and deceptive.
For the benefit of our readers, permit me to review the material of the cloning debate: Should legislation be framed to permit or to repress all attempts at cloning human beings? Should attempts to clone humans be legalized, if not for incorporating them into the society (reproductive cloning) but to be used for experimentation, possibly benefiting other members of the society? (therapeutic cloning)
Confusion appears in much of the discussion: Some deny that the supposed cloned embryos are human beings (to satisfy moral principles) and, at the same time, profess needing them to satisfy their biological requirement of human experimentation. Some would accept clones as human, yet, proclaim that they may be killed to serve some "good" greater than their own survival.
Along with the ethical problems of attempting to clone humans, is the proposed biological use of embryonic humans produced by "in vitro fertilization." Here also is found the assumption that these may be killed to serve some "good" greater than their own survival. In this instance the argument supposedly is enhanced by the assumption that these embryonic human beings would otherwise be "wasted" by not being "used." Whether they ought, or ought not, to be "used" is frequently absent from the "agenda" of the debate.
If the debate were to proceed logically, it should be prefaced by an examination of the primary questions: Is human cloning possible? Is there any evidence that a human being has come into existence by cloning? If so, what criteria are being used to establish that identity? What is a human being and what proof would be required for identifying any individual as a human being? And what about human rights, especially the right to life; are they not resident in the individual, rather than in the state?
Questions such as these are not being asked. Unwarranted assumptions are accepted in place of their answers. Confusion reigns, instead of truth and justice! Any observer of the Roe v. Wade's creeping stranglehold on commonsense would testify that this present confusion is self-inflicted. "Roe" destroyed the unborn, human individual by neglecting to perceive his or her human nature, in common with our own. As the degenerative process continues, "Roe" and its progeny are promoting the current disregard for the dignity of the society, which rises or falls with the dignity of its individual members, especially of those waiting to be born. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: Roe vs. Wade does not say that you may kill your unborn baby. It says that you may abort your unborn baby. If abortion involves only becoming unpregnant, I don't see how the killing part of "partial birth abortion" is protected by the Supreme Court's decision. Here the abortion, that is, emptying the uterus, is already done before killing the baby.
Editor's note: Partial-birth abortion is being deliberated again in the U.S. Legislature, in our House of Representatives. After twice having been banned by the legislature (and twice vetoed by President Clinton) partial-birth abortion will be closely studied to face a newer, more disciplined, ban in the days to come. We encourage our viewers, whether state-side or from other countries, to share their insights on this crucial, legal, moral and social matter. We suggest your consideration of the above comment relative to the meaning of Roe v. Wade (our present legal status) in light of partial-birth abortion.
Reply: Your comment raises some interesting questions. First, how is abortion defined by the "Roe" court? Second, how is killing related to abortion? Third, does the so-called right to an abortion imply the right to kill, as when the baby is still alive after the abortion?
The Court did not define abortion but assumed its common usage, the termination of a pregnancy. It can be said that "termination of pregnancy" was used by the Court as synonymous with abortion.
Common usage seems to imply that the death of the baby is necessarily involved in the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. But is this implication without question? Webster's New World Dictionary presents this definition: "abortion. 1. expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is viable." In practice, Roe v. Wade, is being invoked to cover the killing of babies who are viable, as in partial-birth abortion, which is undertaken at twenty weeks and beyond, a time span of authenticated viability. Is it not proper, then, to investigate the reality of abortion without killing? Could this reality have been implicit in the Court's intention?
Implicitly, the Court could be interpreted as saying: "You may kill your baby, but only insofar as that killing is a part of the abortion, as part of the process of terminating your pregnancy, as part of becoming unpregnant."
If "Roe" were examined with some degree of clarity, problems would arise, such as the killing of a baby, in the womb, who could have been delivered alive by Cesarean section. Or would that involve "an undo burden" on the mother, as dictated by the "Casey" court in defense of its parent, "Roe?" In other words, what are the legal limits of terminating a pregnancy, in terms of killing babies?
Obviously, "Roe" did not say that the baby may be killed after an abortion, (sometimes called an attempted-abortion) even though the baby's death had been initially intended. In that instance, the death could not be construed to be part of an abortion.
In light of these considerations, partial-birth abortion might well fall outside of "Roe's" protection. Arguments against this position would have to prove that the pregnancy is not yet terminated prior to the killing. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: Did the Roe vs. Wade Court want us to think that what we were before birth and what we are after birth is like apples and oranges? Two different things, I mean, so that the mother may kill one but not the other?
Reply: If the Court said that we are non-human before birth and human only after birth, your apples and oranges would explain why one may be killed but not the other. If the Court did make such a statement, they provided no proof to back up their position. In fact, there is no proof for such a statement. What the Court said, in my opinion, is that we are purple-humans (unborn) before birth and green-humans (born) after birth. On this basis the Court should have had no claim to legitimize our killing before birth, anymore than after birth, since humans are not to be killed in either instance. It is pertinent here to note, clearly, that the Court did not prove that we are not human beings before our birth.
Recently I commented on the caption of the Reuters' news story: "French court rules foeus not living human." A court does not take it upon itself to affirm or deny whether a fetus is or is not a living human being. Such a declaration could be made only by a biologist in conjunction with a philosopher or, perhaps, by the majority of the people from the beginning of human history until now. Neither the Roe court nor the French court offered evidence of having undertaken any serious consultation with these two specialists in science, nor had they fairly considered the estimation of the entire society in its time-honored respect for its unborn members.
The news story itself says: "An unborn foetus does not have the legal status of a living person." By "living person" do they infer that a fetus in not a living person, or do they merely mean a person already born?
What the courts said is that the human being, before birth, being purple (unborn) is not protected by the law of the land. Only green-human beings (born) are protected. And who made the rule upon which the declaration is founded? The courts, themselves, fabricated the rule!
This is the point of my recent writing: The Roe court and the French court have arbitrarily consigned the unborn segment of our society to their deaths, relinquishing the prime responsibility of a government, that of protecting the lives of all persons living within its boundaries.
In an attempt to explain my harsh judgment of the Roe v. Wade court, let me add this comment: Although it is in the nature of a court to build upon precedent, this court failed to find in our Constitution an explicit reference to the humanity-status of the unborn. As a consequence it should have been their responsibility either to locate an implicit precedent in the Constitution or to ask the federal legislature to formulate an explicit one. Lacking these, the Court should have employed the ethical principle of "non-action in the face of uncertainty" and recognized, in practice, the unborn's right to life.
Whether the Court fulfilled this responsibility with regard to the second option, (ask the legislature) the answer is in the negative. In fact they obstructed the federal and state legislatures' right to decide on such issues, even to the present day. As for the first option (locate a legitimate, implicit reading of the Constitution) many competent Constitutional experts agree that the Court's "fringes of the shadows of the Constitution" do not fulfill the requirements of a valid, implied interpretation of the Founding Fathers' intention. As to the third alternative (do not act in doubt) there is no evidence that the Court gave it any consideration.
Instead of facing their designated responsibility, the Court took upon themselves the role of "legislating" the Constitution, rather than the role of interpreting it. Justice White, a member of the Court, in his dissenting opinion, spoke of the Court's action as "an exercise in raw, judicial power." In denying Constitutional protection for the unborn, the Court misrepresented the U.S. Constitution.
The absence of reference to the unborn in the Constitution is not a "green-light" for their extermination. When the Founding Fathers wrote that document, it was a time when every human being was treasured as a valuable resource for a pioneering nation. Those men, many of them fathers with children, could never have foreseen a need to put into writing the obvious fact that parents should not kill their unborn children. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: I have never seen anyone prove that the unborn is not a human being. How did the Supreme Court manage to do it?
Reply: The Supreme Court didn't do it either! Along with its many other defects, the Roe v. Wade decision rests, not on a foundation of fact, but on the absence of a factual foundation.
The Court clearly said that if the unborn were proved to be human persons, the Court would have no case on which to proceed. On the other hand, the Court decided against the unborn with no evidence that the unborn are not human persons. In so serious a matter as life and death, it is inequitable to demand proof from one litigant and not from the other. The Court challenged the unborn to prove their human personhood, but did not hold themselves to proving that the unborn are not human persons.
Prior to the moral collapse which made Roe v. Wade possible, the citizens of the United States, in their laws and customs, had held the unborn to be human persons. The Court's declaration of "not a person in the full sense," which in practice means "non-person" and which is a death sentence for the unborn, should have required proof from the Court. No adequate effort was made by the Court to prove that the unborn are not human beings and, therefore, not human persons.
Looking more deeply into the puzzle of the Court's decision, it can be seen that those defending the unborn (the state of Texas) and those deliberating the case (the Court) do not have a common subject of discourse. Texas talks about real, live human beings; the Court talks about legal persons. Yet, under the disguise of ruling against legal personhood of the unborn, the Court opened the way to killing the real, live human beings who are no different from ourselves, except that they are waiting to be born.
During this week France's highest court echoed the Roe v. Wade puzzle into the law of its land. The manner in which the story is presented on the Internet will help us to understand Roe a little better.
An Internet news service quotes Reuters, June 25, Paris: "France's highest court ruled on Tuesday an unborn foetus does not have the legal status of a living person, overturning a bid by a woman to sue doctors for the death of her child during labour. The decision by the Cour de Cassation means it is impossible to be found guilty of homicide for killing an unborn foetus. Lawyers of the woman, Sophie Potonet, said their only hope was for Parliament to change French law......"
The caption used by the Internet reporter of the Reuters' news story is worthy of study: "Top French court rules foetus not living person." As with Roe, the French court is not saying that the fetus is not a living human being, which in the common estimation of society is to say, a human person. But the court is unjustly establishing a limit to the moral and social prerogatives of the unborn person in reference to those persons already born.
For a glimpse into the legitimate, legal distinctions between the unborn person and ourselves, you may refer to Section 4.
You may examine Roe v. Wade, verbatim, to assure yourself of the Court's failure to have proved that the unborn, from conception, are not human beings. And, as you fault the Court for its many millions of dead, you might want to invite all who blindly follow that Court's decision to view their own complicity in those killings. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: Many countries are debating the use of embryonic stem cells for research. Most seem to agree that it involves the death of human beings. Some are voting to permit it anyway. If the people are really thinking, why don't they all come to the same conclusion about not using these cells?
Reply: If I understand your question correctly, you are holding for the objectivity of human reason and the consequent uniformity of ethical principles throughout the world. If we were to look at the behavior of legislatures, in the abstract, it is reasonable to assume that their enactments on a common problem would be identical. However, in practice, there are additional factors which enter into their deliberations, which bring about different results.
Perhaps the most significant of these factors is the failure of some legislators to understand fully the material upon which they are asked to vote, that is, to see it under all its aspects. As with other busy human beings, legislators sometimes seize upon one aspect of an issue and neglect the others.
This may be why the appeal to emotion rather than to reason effectively absorbs some legislative debaters, as is evident when lobbyists use "non sequitur" appeals to influence their decisions. A "sad story" told by a celebrity may well deter an overly-busy legislator from thinking-through the problem and from evaluating the supposed applicable merits of the "story."
In some instances the obstacle to correct judgment may be the legislators' faulty ranking of values. They might, sometimes unwittingly, sacrifice a greater good to obtain a lesser one.
In the case of embryonic stem-cells, legislators are easily mislead by euphemistic promises of unlimited, potential benefits. The fact is that embryonic stem-cells do not perform typically in environments other than in the embryo. Transplanted into mature, adult tissue they do more harm than good.
It should be noted here that stem-cells of adult tissues and organs function characteristically in mature environments, and have realistic potential for curing illnesses. Their natural role is to supply their tissues and organs with replacement cells, as needed by the organism.
The biologist explains cell-differentiation as a behavior of the cell in response to changing conditions of its immediate environment. The cell will differentiate if, and when, called for through these changes by the organism as it follows its pre-programmed design. Nature is purposive, but it has its own purposes.
Other obstacles to justice may include preferential treatment for favored individuals or groups, unreasonable desire for national prestige, and any other factor that might militate against the correctness of moral judgment on the part of the legislators.
As a final suggestion, it should go without saying that if the force of moral principles is weak or lacking in the deliberations of a legislature, its enactment will not conform to the objective standard of other legislatures who are more strictly guided by those principles of right reason.
If I may add a personal note, it would be to say that I am pleased to see that, around the world, the embryonic stem-cell is considered by the majority of the human race to be "off-limits" to predators. However, I am saddened to know that the potential "donor" of the embryonic stem-cell is still at risk, along with the other unborn human beings who are being killed by legalized abortion. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's note: The following is a brief examination of the claim that
the offspring is part of the mother until birth, because of being
"grafted" to her. The use of the term "offspring" is also discussed.
Reply: Welcome to the discussion! I appreciate your commenting on the term "offspring," though you failed to see that its use is consistent with the rest of my statement. Webster's Dictionary makes "offspring" synonymous with "descendent" and "progeny." I chose the term to reinforce the biological reality that the newly-born child is the same organism, numerically and specifically, which, some nine months earlier, had existed as a zygote.
Your emphasis on etymology should help you to see that "springing-off" from parental identity had already occurred, when each of the parents had given up his and her reproductive cell to form the zygote. The zygote then should be eligible to be called the offspring of its parents.
Although chickens are not placental animals, artificial incubation of the fertilized egg demonstrates that a developing offspring need not be a conjoined part of its parents.
Your construct of the offspring as being a graft and becoming a part of the mother, is difficult to reconcile with the nature of biological grafting, where the graft, on the part of the graft-recipient, becomes a permanent possession. It might make sense to think of the placenta as temporarily "grafting" itself into the specially prepared, spongy tissue of the uterine wall. But, even here, the offspring is not part of the placenta. You might want to question whether you are speaking analogously when you refer to grafting in this unique instance. Implantation (nidation) is even less understandable if the embryo were to become part of the mother, rather than merely entering into a symbiotic relationship with her.
During battle conditions blood is sometimes infused from one soldier to another, of the same blood type, through a plastic tube terminating in needles suitable for intravenous entry. This intubations does not make the two individuals to become one individual, except by some extravagant analogy.
You might profit from comparing placental tissue's involvement with the spongy lining of the uterus, by considering the behavior of a metastasized cancer cell, in reference to the tissue of its new location. In the loosest sense of the term you might call the resulting tumor a "graft" on the part of the multiplying cancer cells. There may be similarities, but there are significant differences, which cloud your concept of grafting.
If you wish to consider birth as the beginning of legal personhood or citizenship, I could agree, as do most of our human society. However, I cannot see how birth changes the status of natural, human personhood of the individual. The premature baby is no more or less human than one born full-term. I have never encountered anyone who disagrees with that. This might incline you to question whether the physical distancing of the baby from his or her accustomed physical environment is a sufficient cause of human personhood, as you have suggested.
I am curious to know why you see a fallacy in claiming that a developing mammal is the same as a mammal. If an organism is following the species directives of its genetic information, wouldn't it have to be a member of that species, family, class, phylum and kingdom? Or what do you mean by "developing?"
I appreciate your comment on Roe v. Wade. Upon further investigation, you could see that the "compelling state's interest" for which Texas was pleading is the life of fellow human beings in the state of Texas. The reality of that interest ought to be evident in the state's defense of its laws which manifest its concern for the unborn in the state of Texas. You may refer to this pleading in the Reargument transcription of the case.
Many thanks for citing your references. In return, we invite you to look over our text material, as indicated in our Table of Contents. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: Thank You for allowing me to initiate this conversation and your invitation to comment further.
- I trust that it will elucidate what it is that I believe you " Don't get"
- Firstly, you must distinguish my comment as stated,
- "Collective global judgment and legislation can't all be wrong."
- From your interpretation,
- "Collective global judgment and legislation can't be all wrong"
- The first premise, that stated, allows no room for an "admission that some of it can be wrong"
- Nevertheless, accepting that you would rewrite law to satisfy your goals and accepting that this must be done within existing legal frameworks, what changes do you propose to meet those ends?
- I suggest that your plight is only capable of realisation if the foetus is seen as a legal person and that the full plethora of legal rights that attach to a legal person be granted to the foetus.
- Clearly the adoption of such a model of the mother and foetus as separate entities puts the mother and foetus in direct adversarial conflict. All pregnant women , whether or not contemplating termination would suffer the loss the meaning of motherhood if from the outset there is a potential conflict of interests.
Who would monitor those foetal rights?
- The mere concept of foetal rights derates the fundamental right of autonomy in our society to determine what shall be done with one's own body.
- There is no x-file, cabal or subversive element that has sole responsibility for the making of and enforcement of immoral law in modern society as you seem to have suggested.
- Recalling your own science classes, you will remember that each organism exists as the best possible product of evolution for that niche in the environment which it fills.
- The law is similarly organic. The existing law reflects the best possible rules by which we live, given the social environment in which we live.
- Please do not leave this conversation without being crystal clear on this point.
- Your comments,
- "Look also to those who fabricate and promote them.........the legislations are not morally better than the morals of those individuals who design them",
- do not carry sufficient weight to be authorative when viewed in the light of multiple eminent thinkers, typified by Baker in Paxton v Trustees of BPAS 2 All ER 987 at 989 when he said
- " the Foetus cannot in English law, in my view, have any rights of its own at least until it is born and has a separate existence from its mother. That permeates the whole of civil law in this country.....and is, indeed, the basis of decisions in those countries where law is founded on the common law, that is to say, America, Canada, Australia, and I have no doubt, in others"
The law at present gives a woman full autonomy to choose what is done with her body. Would you be more comfortable if this were not the case? Would you sanction forced intervention into the mother's body with disastrous results, as in the case of Re :S?
Existing law has protected women from the status of foetal containers for many years. I hope that your readers are fully aware with the prospect that the same changes that will bring about your goals will -potentially reduce women to this legal role.
- Your argument may lead those who have in fact not thought carefully to believe that there is either an exceptionally widespread strain of immorality permeating throughout most of western legal society, concentrating principally in legislators and the judiciary, or that somehow the laws that have evolved from countless thousands of hours of consideration by the minds of our eminent thinkers (whom I am sure have appropriated the full measure of human reason) are somehow fundamentally inappropriate for reasons other than that they do not conform with the stance that you choose to promulgate.
- I have further specific concerns that attach to the granting of foetal rights and ask that you turn your mind to these with specific comment.
The Maternal -foetal Dyad that will be necessitated by the introduction of foetal rights will handcuff medical practitioners in their ability to advise on a balance of risks to both. Ethically , the doctor cannot then consider competing interests as each will be an individual patient. The introduction of foetal rights will accrue rights to the foetus, but to the mother. We have a forced intervention scenario again.......Who , again I ask, will be the mother's hangman in monitoring those foetal rights?
- The blow that the removal of autonomy from the mother and granting of potentially adversarial rights to her foetus would have on the ground breaking advancements in foetal surgery would more than likely bring the science of in utero or pre-partum foetal surgery to a standstill.
- Doctors undertaking the surgical treatment of conditions otherwise not compatible with a live birth are providing many parents with the joy a healthy near normal child.
- The same rights that will be required for the foetus in order to achieve your plight with regard to abortion will clearly be those that also provide the means to litigate the miracle of pre-partum foetal surgery from the face of medical knowledge.
- Please indicate whether you would be prepared to allow this as acceptable collateral damage in your battle to secure your grail.
All your arguments falsely presume the presence of some form of foetal rights. Typically, you begin with,
"If we assume that an embryo or fetus is at some point an individual with serious rights...."
You need not assume the point at which a foetus obtains rights. In all societies to which we can relate, that point is at viable birth. Your readers should note that "thoughtful" conclusions arising from an unsound base are meaningless. Emotive, yes but incapable of deriving change by logical reason.
Are you beginning to get it? The only tenable law is that which gives legalpersonality at viable birth.
- Finally, the laws on which I base my comments are not the irrelevant laws of chemistry, physics, or some other indeterminate laws of " the nature of things" to which your reply refers., but those common and criminal laws of the jurisdictions which would require modification in order to fulfill your goals by the granting of rights to the foetus.
<