Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion “performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions”; that she was unable to get a “legal” abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions. She claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. By an amendment to her complaint, Roe purported to sue “on behalf of herself and all other women” similarly situated.
John and Mary Doe, a married couple, filed a companion complaint to that of Roe. They also named the District Attorney as defendant, claimed like constitutional deprivations, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The Does alleged that they were a childless couple; that Mrs. Doe was suffering from a “neural-chemical” disorder; that her physician had “advised her to avoid pregnancy until such time as her condition has materially improved” (although a pregnancy at the present time would not present “a serious risk” to her life); that, pursuant to medical advice, she had discontinued use of birth control pills; and that, if she should become pregnant, she would want to terminate the pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent, licensed physician under safe, clinical conditions. By an amendment to their complaint, the Does purported to sue “on behalf of themselves and all couples similarly situated.”
The only person not represented, but affected, in the decision was the unborn child. The pro-choice individuals do not believe the unborn is an independent individual until it is separated from the mother. They argue that in order for the unborn baby to be considered an individual, that child must be viable outside the mother’s womb. According to current American law, regardless of science, human life does not begin before viability. But what is viability after all? It is that stage of fetal development when the new being is “potentially able to live [that is, survive] outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial help” (Roe v. Wade, n. 45). Now, is viability a valid requirement for determining the legal existence of human life?
It is evident that the embryo cannot survive by itself outside the womb, although its life is totally distinct from that of the mother. The vital principle which makes it grow does not come from the mother, but rather has its own independent impulse. In view of this indisputable and objective biological fact, when does an embryo become viable? As applied to embryonic life, what has viability come to mean?
Wouldn’t this argument make pre mature babies inhuman?
What about Cancer victims, HIV patients, artificial heart transplants? All of them require artificial means in order to keep the individual “viable.” Do they cease to be human?
In the last century, premature babies born before the seventh month were generally doomed to death for lack of adequate technical means to keep them alive. Today it is possible to save a baby born after the twentieth week, and scientists are currently seeking to develop an artificial placenta that would make ten-week-old embryos “viable.”
“Neonatal medicine,” points out Dr. Stuart Kolner, “has decreased the risks associated with premature birth. The World Health Organization adopted the standard of twenty-two weeks as being the dividing line between spontaneous abortion and birth, and newborns as young as twenty-weeks gestational age have survived. Since abortions are routinely performed as late as twenty-four weeks, one can no longer justify such procedures on grounds of fetal non-viability.”
Viable or not, human life is the same. What has changed are the technical means for protecting and improving human gestation. Viability is measured by the sophistication of the life-support systems around the baby, not by the humanness or aliveness of the baby itself.
The law, as much as it may desire otherwise, can neither create a human life nor decree that a human life is not such. The law must limit itself to acknowledging natural reality. In order to ascertain whether there is life or death, the lawmaker is obliged to have recourse to the biologist and the physician, never the other way around. Only arbitrariness could make legality prevail over natural reality.
The inviolable right to life of every human individual constitutes one of the fundamental rights of civil society and its juridical order. From the moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings—the most innocent at that—of legal protection, the sound rule of law is threatened at its very foundations.
The pro-choice groups argue that young women were dying in back alleys due the lack of a “competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions before Roe vs Wade.” They fail to mention that a counter culture war was also being waged which promoted and condoned uninhibited sex free of responsibility and blind to the consequences of their actions, something which Ms. Roe admitted in her testimony and later regretted.
These same individuals, who waged the counter culture war, have shed their tye-dyed T-shirts, put on suits and became the liberals/progressives of today. They are still promoting free uninhibited sex and passionately defend their right to kill the unborn child, regardless of which of semester they might find themselves in. Some go as far (Senator Boxer D-CA) claiming the baby does not have Constitutional rights until it has left the hospital. The same rights which were afforded to them do not apply to the individual in which they had a part in creating.
They will fight any science which reveals the human character of the unborn child, but adopt it when it suites them. In order to determine if the fertilized egg is indeed life it must be determined what constitutes a living organism. According to Hickman, Roberts and Larsen’s (1997) book on Zoology, any living organism will meet the seven basic principles of life;
1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and
complex molecular organization.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems
demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization.
3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves.
4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides fidelity
5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining
nutrients from their environments.
6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle.
7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment.
Given these principles, any fertilized egg which results in a zygote, embryo and fetus constitutes a living organism;
1) Chemical Uniqueness. Fertilized eggs possess their own unique DNA
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Hickman, Roberts, and
Larson (1997) explain that the most basic unit in the biological
hierarchy is the cell. The cell holds the properties of living organisms,
and cells can be manipulated in the laboratory and can be reproduced,
whereas nonliving elements cannot. Therefore, the fertilized egg would
meet this criterion, although it would be a more basic unit of the
3) Reproduction. Scientist observes that the zygote
possesses two different methods of reproduction: cell reproduction and
twinning. According to Scientist, twinning is “a form of asexual
reproduction, which can occur after conception.”
4) Possession of a genetic program. Science confirms
that from conception, the fertilized egg has “its own unique genetic
code.” The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of the
genetic information that will ever be needed.
5) Metabolism. Science confirms that from conception,
the fertilized egg meets the requirement of metabolism.
6) Development. Hickman, Roberts, and Larson (1997) state;
“Development describes the characteristic changes that an organism
undergoes from its origin (usually the fertilization of the egg by sperm)
to its final adult form.” Thus, although the fertilized egg will take on
different forms throughout its life cycle, the development of life begins
7) Environmental interaction. The entity in the womb interacts with its
environment in many ways. Kicking and jumping are both examples.
In addition, research has shown that the fetus can be soothed by music
and can recognize the voice of its mother.
We have proven that vitality is a poor argument and life begins at fertilization as determined by secular science and NOT law, but what about rape or the health of the mother?
The health of the mother over the unborn child was the only thing that pro-life and pro-choice groups can agree on. Rape is also a well established argument, but it only relates to 1/10 of a percent of all abortions since Roe vs Wade. The other 99% are just victims of murder.
Given these facts, it is reasonable to conclude that the pro-choice groups are uninformed, they believe their rights are greater than another(making them bigots) or they just do not care about the sanctity of life.
Abortion now becomes a selfish and careless act by the individual to better themselves over the lives of others.