BERGEN COUNTY RIGHT TO LIFE

Roe v. Science

Although the merits of the Roe v Wade decision have been commented upon on legal, social, religious and ethical grounds, it is startling that it has never been examined in two aspects that should rank as prominently as the above, namely logical and scientific aspects.

Perhaps it should not be too surprising that although everyone has a strong ideological bent to the issue, hardly anyone has ever taken the trouble to read the Supreme Court’s decision that made abortion legal in the United States. Should that be surprising? People have definite ideas on evolution and psychoanalysis and yet have never cracked the spine on the writings of Darwin and Freud.

To go to the heart of the issue on Roe, one has of necessity to read Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion that substantiated the ruling. Reading Justice Rehnquist’s minority report yields very little of value. Justice Blackmun, having labored through the difficult question delves into the history of fetal considerations and society’s past rulings, comes to the tortured admission that the time of the beginning of life, of vitality of the fetus cannot be determined. Therefore, he rules that we can go back in precedents and accept that life begins from the moment of “quickening”, that is, when the mother (and others) can feel the first stirrings of the embryo.

Logically, one may say that this determination is not a determination at all but an arbitrary selection. Blackmun then goes further, building on this rather shaky foundation to say that given this determination, then the fetus can be considered as having life after quickening but before this, shall be considered to be part of the mother, that is part of her body. It then follows, according to Blackmun, that since it is “part of her body”, a woman should be free to determine how “her body” is treated without interference by government.

We must realize, of course, that at the time of Blackmun’s decision, medical knowledge was less than it is today. With the luxury of DNA analysis, we can now determine that the fetus previous to quickening cannot be considered part of the woman’s body because it has a different nucleic DNA than the mother, establishing it as a separate entity. If it can be proven scientifically that this fetal tissue is not part of her body, then can she determine what is to be done with it at this or any other stage of its development without interference.

There is no question that society sets the parameters of determination of what life is and when it is legal to interfere with its natural course. The argument here is not with when this society sets the beginning of life or when its progress can be interrupted. The Declaration of Independence sets “life” as a guarantee, but government can modify it by various means as in punishment for crime, time of war, or to end unnecessary human suffering. The argument goes further in its understanding of stares decisis, that a law or decision should not be overturned when such an action would cause an exceptional upheaval in society. Yet, can a logically, and scientifically unsustainable law or decision be allowed to stand and have a profound effect on society? The question then follows, when should an erroneously drawn conclusion be allowed to stand?

If the people of this nation wish to allow “choice” in the matter of allowing pregnancy to be aborted, it has the means of addressing this issue through legislative action or by appeal to the courts. Such action, whatever the moral significance should not be based on poor reasoning and poor science.