On Abortion, Courts Should Follow the Science

Those who wish to preserve Roe v. Wade seem reluctant to follow the science on abortion’s central question. When it comes to the unborn, are we talking about a human life? As Graham H. Walker notes, the objective answer to this question hinges not on religion or ideology but on empirical evidence.

“Check the cell DNA,” Walker recommends. “It is tissue of a member of the species homo sapiens. Does it have a distinct individual genetic identity, or does its genetic blueprint match that of other cells comprising a woman’s body? Again, check the DNA: every cell of the pre-born entity carries a genetic fingerprint marking it as an individual distinct from all other individuals in the species. Accordingly, the pre-born entity has its own separate brain, nerve, cardiovascular, digestive, excretory, respiratory, musculoskeletal, immune, endocrine, and reproductive systems. It even has its own blood type, distinct from that of the mother.”

Add the scientific findings of advanced ultrasonography and “It is hard to avert one’s eyes from the increasingly plain empirical evidence that the unborn is a human life.” Pete Buttigieg doesn’t think so, however, and so the onetime Democratic presidential hopeful appeals to religion.

“There’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath,” Buttigieg said in 2019. “The most important thing is the person who should be drawing the line is the woman making the decision.” That would be the decision to terminate a human life. Those pondering that choice might consider the late Christopher Hitchens.

Like all orthodox atheists, Hitchens had no use for concepts such as “ensoulment,” taking place at some point after conception and before birth when a person allegedly becomes fully human. For Hitchens, life begins at conception simply because there is no other place it can begin. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was born on March 15, 1933, but Hitchens believed her life actually began at conception.

As the late Nat Hentoff observed, a change of address does not make you a human being. The great jazz writer and civil libertarian opposed abortion as the taking of a human life. So Hentoff believed Ruth Bader Ginsburg was already a human being on March 1, 1933 and long before. Pro-abortionists don’t think so.

Among pro-abortion Democrats, Buttigieg’s view is something of a middle ground. The abortion industry doesn’t think so, with its advocacy of “partial birth” abortion. Former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, known for appearances in blackface, wants to keep already delivered babies comfortable while the mother makes the decision to end the baby’s life. According to nurse Jill Stanek, when babies survive abortion, the compassionate staff at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, send the babies to a “comfort room” to die in peace.

In this crowd, human beings have no right to live apart from someone else’s wishes for them. Recall that abortion godmother Margaret Sanger colluded with the KKK and saw abortion as a way to reduce the number of brown people in the world.

As Drew Allen explains, if people on the Left acknowledged that the unborn were babies, “abortion would have to be recognized as murder, both immoral and wrong.” That’s why pro-abortionists fight to preserve Roe. “Keeping abortion legal means never having to face the horror of what they have done,” notes Antoinette Aubert. “Those who have committed that sin will do whatever it takes to keep their absolution.”

For Graham Walker, “the paramount question is, and has always been, is what we’re talking about a human life?” To find out, “check the cell DNA.” The genetic fingerprint marks a distinct individual, with separate brain, nerve, cardiovascular and other systems separate from the mother.

The humanity of the unborn is a matter of science. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court was emanating in the penumbras. The current Supreme Court should follow the light of science.