Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Why Science Strengthens the Pro-Life Argument

  1. #1
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,480
    Amen (Given)
    12079
    Amen (Received)
    25784

    Why Science Strengthens the Pro-Life Argument

    Why Science Strengthens the Pro-Life Argument


    Can science undo the havoc that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey wreaked on America? The country’s leading pro-life leaders believe so. “Unique From Day One: Pro-life Is Pro-science,” the theme for this year’s pro-life March for Life, focuses on the natural alliance between mother and child.

    This year the March for Life will showcase experts on modern ultrasound and other tools of fetal monitoring and the benefit that these tools offer to expectant parents. These scientific and technical advances reveal the vitality of the developing child at the earliest stages in pregnancy. The galloping sound of a baby’s heartbeat first heard at seven weeks gestation is a great comfort to any new mother. And as each successive week passes, pregnant women are now able to track their baby’s – and their own – growth. Each revealed milestone adds to expectation. Similarly, the wonder of life’s first days is within our grasp. Groups like Contend Projects are working hard to spread awareness among youth – future mothers and fathers -- of the biological science of human embryology. They hope to educate more people on the science of when a human being begins to exist.

    Science reveals the mother-child bond -- a bond which is decidedly not adversarial (at least not until the teen years). Our legal tradition, by contrast, currently considers a woman’s developing child as adverse to her liberty. This shouldn’t be surprising. Courts resolve cases and controversies between adversaries. One side wins, one side loses. But when it comes to abortion, the law – unlike science -- is getting farther and farther from catching up with the truth.

    It has been almost 50 years since the Supreme Court created a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion in Roe v. Wade. Writing for the majority in Roe, Justice Harry Blackmun attempted to balance the “liberty interests” of a pregnant woman to terminate her pregnancy and the state’s interest in protecting the “potential life” of her unborn child. Using arbitrary trimesters that track the progression of a woman’s pregnancy, he set forth guidelines for permissible limitations on abortion.

    Roe’s trimester system quickly proved unworkable, however, and the court replaced it in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. Casey retained Roe’s holding “that viability marks the earliest point at which the State's interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on nontherapeutic abortions.” But instead of Blackmun’s approach, the court adopted the “undue burden” standard to review abortion regulations. “A finding of an undue burden,” wrote Justice Sandra Day O’Connor for the court plurality, “is a shorthand for the conclusion that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”

    Casey’s focus on the burdens to a woman’s liberty and away from the stages of human development was presented as a pragmatic solution insulating judicial review from advances in medical science. But the problem with pragmatic solutions is that they generally don’t work. Since Casey, abortion advocates have argued that any abortion restriction constitutes an undue burden. They even opposed the federal ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure on these grounds. The response of the Supreme Court came in its 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart decision. The high court upheld the ban, but not because partial-birth abortion is a grave offense against humanity. Rather, the Supreme Court said the partial-birth abortion ban simply did not constitute an undue burden on a woman’s liberty.

    Under Roe, courts used a trimester approach to balance the interests of a woman against the state’s interest in protecting her child. After Casey, courts evaluate the extent to which a regulation burdens a woman’s liberty. Both standards end up pitting mother against child. Science, however, offers a better answer to this issue by focusing our attention on the strength of the mother-child bond.

    Perhaps the Supreme Court will incorporate new science and revise how courts consider abortion regulations and limitations. But even if the court fails to do so right away, Americans can still look to science -- the hard science of ultrasounds, fetal monitoring and embryology -- to see the irrefutable connection between mother and child. And that it is a mutually enriching bond that ought to be supported, not severed.

    Andrea Picciotti-Bayer is legal adviser for The Catholic Association Foundation.


    Global Warming -- The SCIENCE!!!!
    Abortion -- The SILENCE!!!
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  2. Amen mossrose amen'd this post.
  3. #2
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,940
    Amen (Given)
    4999
    Amen (Received)
    22170
    Science shows that the fetus is an individual and not part of the mother's body.

  4. Amen Bill the Cat, lee_merrill amen'd this post.
  5. #3
    God, family, chicken! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,726
    Amen (Given)
    8028
    Amen (Received)
    8341
    Embryologists know what it is.


    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals --- Manya the Holy Szin --- The Quintara Marathon ---

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common --- Stephen R. Donaldson ---

  6. #4
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    52,417
    Amen (Given)
    1113
    Amen (Received)
    19073
    The self-described party of science reveals itself to be increasingly ignorant of basic biology.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  7. #5
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,480
    Amen (Given)
    12079
    Amen (Received)
    25784
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    The self-described party of science reveals itself to be increasingly and stubbornly ignorant of basic biology.
    fify
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  8. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  9. #6
    Oops....... mossrose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    slave & child of Christ
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    20,804
    Amen (Given)
    15798
    Amen (Received)
    9565
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    The self-described party of science reveals itself to be willfully ignorant of basic biology.
    Fify.


    Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

  10. Amen Cow Poke, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •