An Argument of Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade, 1973, The Supreme Court of the United States of America decided and ruled on why it is permissible to kill an unborn child. This ruling of law has been one of the most controversial rules of law enacted in our country. Disguising the practice under a privacy act between a physician and a patient, in this case, a pregnant woman allowed the decision to become law. Indeed, the court seems to have made reasoning’s out of whole cloth to reach their conclusion. In other words, the Justices sitting on the court appeared to be waiting on a case they could massage into law to allow abortion. Their decision deeply split our country between two groups. The people who wanted and demanded that women have an absolute say so on what they may do to their bodies and those who believe in life’s sanctity.

Unfortunately, the same issues started in 1973 with this decision that exists today in 2020. Throughout the world, there is a long history of abortion, pros and cons, recorded over the past 3500 years, and cited in the SCOTUS decision, beginning with the Persian Empire that saw abortion as a criminal act and those involved in it were severely punished. To appreciate the full nature of how many countries disallowed this practice, read the SCOTUS decision.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I hold a law degree with all the above stated. I am speaking from a layperson’s point of view about the law as I understand it. I do not hold a medical degree and will talk about what I know about physiology and biology from my readings. I am not a theologian; however, I am a Christian, so I have a view on abortion that some readers will say is biased. I am in full support of Judge Amy C. Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court. The US Senate plans on making an issue out of this subject during the hearings. The problem that I have decided to address is when does life begin? At what point are we human or a person. I am not discussing a more complicated issue of rape and incest.

Believers of abortion maintain that until a baby is born and outside of the womb, the baby is nothing more than tissue from a human body. I don’t see it this way. Those against abortion believe in various degrees about life beginning at multiple stages of development, some at conception, and some say when a heartbeat is detected. Let us explore those beliefs.

When does life begin is the broad question to this writing. I am going to get a little bit medical here based on my readings. “Fertilization occurs when a single male gamete (sperm cell) and a female gamete (egg or oocyte) are united following sexual intercourse, and a new life is conceived.” (How the Body Works, A Comprehensive Illustrated Encyclopedia of Anatomy, General Editor: Dr. Peter Abrahams, 2007, Metro Books, NY).

I was surprised to read that this fertilization/conception occurs in as little as two hours following ejaculation. During this process, several things happen, determination of sex, male or female. Also, twins can develop, along with genetic imperfections. Life starts. Heartbeat comes later as the fetus grows and organs develop, several weeks later.

The religious conception that each person has a soul is, without a doubt, correct in my beliefs. However, it is not within the State’s authority to declare a soul exists or does not exist. There is no scientific way for the State to prove or disprove a soul. The soul falls entirely within the providence of your religious beliefs and how much faith you have in God. It is the soul that makes a human a person and levies the State’s responsibility to protect the person, regardless of what stage of development, from the womb to old age and death. Parts of Roe v. Wade are challenging in recognizing a person and when such recognition takes place, identifying the fetus as a human person.

Some people believe that a child born must be totally outside of the birth canal and can be certified as a human person genetically. Dr. Francis H. C. Crick (1916-2004), a British neuroscientist, biophysicist, and molecular biologist, had a stated position on this argument. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962 on discoveries of the molecular structure of nucleic acids. He was an agnostic humanist that leaned heavily into being an atheist and disliking Christianity. He skeptically denied humans had souls. The question rises and makes me wonder if Crick influenced the decision on Roe v. Wade.

Under its authority, the State recognizes the fetus as a person, conceived shortly after sexual congress, than it has a distinct right to ensure all rights, privileges, and protection asserted in our Constitution and Bill of Rights can and shall be fully implemented. However, in so doing, it raises the question of abortion being murder. Do the mother and the doctor’s help enter a conspiracy to murder by killing the unborn child? The high court carefully has skirted this thorny issue by allowing abortionists to claim the fetus nothing more than a lump of human tissue, even though formed in the image of a human. This argument is also where the other aspect of abortionist ideas comes in when they raise the specter of incest and rape and a mother’s absolute right to abort a child from forced sexual encounters. After birth, feticide violates the Fourteenth Amendment to due process right out of the gate.

Attorney Joshua Light makes the argument that “If you damage the eggs of a bald eagle, you will get the same penalty as if it was an adult bird. If you harm the fetus of a bottlenose dolphin – or any other endangered species, you will get the same fine as if it was an adult.” Raising how a criminal can be charged in a double murder when a woman is pregnant? Any other time such as abortion, this is not a factor. Why the double standard?

Abortion today is primarily used for the convenience of the mother not wanting a child due to the lack of her responsibility in engaging in sexual acts. Also, this strongly applies to the male side of this argument. They failed in their duty too. Using abortion as birth control is outrageous, in my opinion, since there are many forms of protection against conception before the act of sex. If such protection fails, that does not provide an excuse for termination of a pregnancy.

“By definition (Merriam-Webster), a person is a human being. A person who likes or enjoys something specified. Law: the body or clothing of a person, especially when considered a place to hide things. By description: The term “person” refers to a being that consists of life and a soul, and has the capability of conscious thought, i.e., is a sentient being.”

“By definition (Merriam-Webster), a human is relating to or affecting people. Typical of people. Having good and bad qualities that people usually have. By description: A human described as part of the Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens sapiens. The term ‘human’ may also refer to the characterizations and qualities of a person, such as humanity.”

For all purposes, a person and a human are the same. The main difference appears to be nothing more than a scientific term used in a person’s description. The word ‘person’ is a philosophical term used to describe a human being.

Returning to my original point, is a fetus developing a person or not? In my understanding of conception, it is at that point of development that a new human person starts two hours after sexual intercourse. By God’s will and divinity, that newly developed person has a soul. Who are we to terminate that unborn and unprotected child? By what standard of human conduct are we operating under as a civilized society, and why?