Ending "Legal" Abortion: Scientific

A Matter of Life & Mass Murder

- Ending "Legal" Abortion -

Toward a Constitutional Remedy

The Scientific - Medical Argument

Extensively discussed @ PL Case.

By monitoring changes in fetal heart rate, psychologist Jean-Pierre Lecanuet, Ph.D.,

and his colleagues in Paris have found that fetuses can even tell strangers' voices

apart. They also seem to like certain stories more than others. The fetal heartbeat

will slow down when a familiar French fairy tale such as "La Poulette" ("The Chick")

or "Le Petit Crapaud" ("The Little Toad"), is read near the mother's belly. When the

same reader delivers another unfamiliar story, the fetal heartbeat stays steady.

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made

State Unborn Victim Laws a summary of the laws of the 30 states that recognize the

unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances. The

federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, enacted April 1, 2004, covers unborn victims

of federal and military crimes.

stemcellresearch.org - Founding Statement

State: Homicide laws of all 50 states protect human life and the dignity of every

human being--especially the vulnerable; laws of many states already specifically

protect vulnerable embryonic human beings outside the womb; most prohibit

destructive human embryo and human fetal research.

National: The present Congressional ban on federally-funded human embryo

research explicitly excludes "research in which a human embryo or embryos

are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death";

existing laws requiring separation between the death of an unborn child in

abortion and research objectives using the unborn child's tissues preclude the

destruction of human embryos as a means of achieving research objectives.

International: Documents such as the Nuremburg Code, the World Medical

Association's Declaration of Helsinki, and the United Nations Declaration of

Human Rights reject the use of human beings in experimental research

without their informed consent and permit research on incompetent subjects

only if there is a legal surrogate, minimal risk, and therapeutic benefit for the

human subject.

CBHD: On Human Embryos and Stem Cell Research

It may strike some as surprising that legal protection of embryonic human beings can

co-exist with the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 legalization of abortion.29 However, the

Supreme Court has never prevented the government from protecting prenatal life

outside the abortion context,30 and public sentiment also seems even more opposed

to government funding of embryo experimentation than to the funding of abortion.31

The laws of a number of states-including Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,

Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Utah-specifically protect embryonic

human beings outside the womb. Most of these provisions prohibit experiments on

embryos outside the womb.32

In FT January 2003: Constitutional Persons, Robert H. Bork stated,"Science and

rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception."

This objective fact refutes any wishful subjective speculation stating otherwise!

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into existence.

This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat

beginning, at conception." Dr. Jerome Lejeune, genetics professor at the University

of Descartes, Paris. He discovered the Down syndrome chromosome.

"From the moment a baby is conceived, it bears the indelible stamp of a separate

distinct personality, an individual different from all other individuals." Ultrasound

pioneer, Sir William Liley, M.D. 1967.

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School.

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment

of conception." Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic.

"The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific

question, and should be answered by human embryologists - not by

philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians,

movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists." Libertarians for Life

"The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes)

at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46

chromosomes - the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of

the human species." Libertarians for Life

"Scientifically, the international consensus of embryologists is that human beings begin

at fertilization (or cloning)--i.e., when their genetic code is complete and operative; even

before implantation they are far more than a "bunch of cells" or merely " potential human

beings."" http://www.stemcellresearch.org/statement/

"The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question - not a

scientific question. I will not go into great detail here, but ""personhood"" begins when

the human being begins - at fertilization." Libertarians for Life This objective argument

refutes all metaphysical speculations stating otherwise.

"Life begins like everything else, at the beginning. At the moment of fertilization, a new

human life begins. The human embryo is a being; and being human, she is a human

being. She is person and not property because no property has the property of building

itself. Everything necessary to make the new human being-the entire blueprint

necessary to build a human being capable of going to the moon and putting a foot on

the moon-is there in the very beginning. Nothing is added after the moment of fertilization.

It is all locked in. Not only the color of our hair and eyes but even how long we will live,

accident or sickness not intervening, is there in the very beginning. The complete

information necessary to build the new human being is written in the smallest subscript

of the universe. We are fearfully and wonderfully made!"

Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity

"A fertilized egg, or zygote, is the first cell stage and exists for only 24 hours. After

cell division, this is no longer a fertilized egg. We then use several other names, which

are incomprehensible to the general public, but one name covers them all and that is

"embryo." So after the first day, he or she is a "living human embryo." Most importantly,

"fertilized eggs" do not implant within the womb. There is a certain power to their

sneering comment, "Why would you want to protect a fertilized egg from planting?"

It makes a difference if you say, "Why would you want to prevent a living human embryo

from planting?"" http://www.lifeissues.org/connector/display.asp?page=04oct.htm#health

They speak of reproductive and therapeutic cloning, "reproductive" being when the new

living human is planted and carried to term and delivered. "Therapeutic" is when "it" will

not be planted in a womb, but will be experimented upon and then "destroyed." We can

accept the term "cloning for reproductive purposes," but it is best not to use "reproductive

cloning," for that indicates there are other types. "Therapeutic" cloning is a total lie, for

there is nothing therapeutic about this. President Bush uses the term "research cloning"

which is quite adequate and accurate. But since they don't allow these tiny humans to

live when they are done with their destructive research, very commonly the best words to

use are "clone and kill." Finally, they often now don't use the word "cloning" at all because

it is too negative. They use the term "somatic cell nuclear transfer." This is the scientific

term for cloning, however it does confuse the public and sounds awfully important and

scientific. From our standpoint we should not use those four words. Let's call it "cloning." http://www.lifeissues.org/connector/display.asp?page=04oct.htm#health

"....medical research shows ""the sensory pathways and connections to the cortex

necessary for pain perception are present, or beginning to form, at twenty weeks

gestation."" For documentation see a complete paper, "Fetal Pain Legislation:

Is It Viable?" Teresa S. Colette, professor S. TX College of Law, Houston. See also,

R. Hyfield, ""Unborn Child Can Feel Pain At Twenty Weeks"", Daily Telegraph 2, 8-28-01." http://www.lifeissues.org/connector/display.asp?page=04july.htm#advance

and http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/fetal_pain.htm

Must Mother Murder To Live?

Dr. Stephen Schwarz, The Moral Question of Abortion, (Manchester, NH: Sophia

Institute Press, 1990), Chapter 14: "Some Legal Dimensions:"

"Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. It is a case of murder. It

must be called by its proper name, both in the moral and legal order. Anything less is

an injustice to the child. The seriousness of the charge of murder is a reflection of the

seriousness with which we take the reality of the victim of the killing. Preborn babies

are not lesser persons - they are our equals. Killing a child before birth is as much

murder as killing that child, or anyone else, after birth. The law must reflect and express

this. It must call abortion by its proper term: murder." www.ohiolife.org/mqa/14-1.asp

American Life League, Definition of abortion: "The administration of any drug,

device, potion, medicine, or any other substance or the use of any instrument or

any other means whatsoever with the specific intent of terminating the life of a

preborn child [the human being in existence from fertilization until birth] or preborn

children; "abortion" shall not be construed to include the following: 1. a case in

which the unintended death of a preborn child or preborn children results from the

use by a physician licensed to practice medicine under (insert code pertinent to law)

of a procedure that is necessary to save the life of the mother or the preborn child

or preborn children. And that is used for the express purpose of, and with the specific

intent of, saving the life of the mother or of the preborn child or preborn children; 2.

a spontaneous abortion; 3. the removal of a preborn child who has died; 4. any

therapeutic treatment or surgery performed upon a preborn child or preborn children

that results in the unintentional death of a preborn child or preborn children."

"To the overwhelming majority of activists in the pro-life movement, a life of the

mother exception is a given in proposed laws against abortion. Prior to Roe v.

Wade, almost every state had this exception, and there was no concerted action

to remove it by churches or other groups. However, there is and has been a

consistent minority opinion held by some of the most sincere and highly motivated

pro-life people that this exception is not needed. In this brief space, allow me to

explain why, even though I don't think it's needed; nevertheless, it is needed.

First, let me call your attention to a recent report from Ireland. Over a decade, three

major hospitals in Dublin report the delivery of 223,000 babies with only two maternal

deaths, deaths that abortion would not have prevented. The head of Obstetrics stated

that he saw no reason to ever do an abortion because the life of a mother was

threatened. This is a remarkable achievement, and a medically legitimate one. In my

travels I have rarely been given a clinical history that indicates to me that an induced

abortion done for life-saving reasons was in fact necessary."

http://www.lifeissues.org/connector/display.asp?page=00jul.html

Dr. Willke continues: "I've been a knowledgeable physician in this area for 52 years.

When I was in training, we were given a number of reasons for "therapeutic abortion,"

that is an abortion to save her life. I have watched through the years as, one by one,

it was shown that these were not necessary or no longer necessary to save her life.

Many became quite treatable, and in a couple of cases it was shown to be more

dangerous to abort than to allow her pregnancy to continue."

Willke briefly discusses: 1) toxemia of pregnancy and 2) severe diabetic crisis where

medical intervention attempts to save mother & child. Premature delivery saves the

mother and may possibly save the child.

He goes on to cover tubal or ectopic pregnancy where the child is certain to die and

the mother's life is in jeopardy. He makes the point that is clearly over the heads of

moral morons - "Yes, the procedure did cause the death of this baby, but the reason

for doing the surgery was to save the mother's life. The death of the baby was not

directly intended; rather, it was an unfortunate, secondary effect. In theology this is

known as primary and secondary effect. You desire the primary, and you reluctantly

accept the secondary. So, in ethical terms, this is truly not an induced abortion."

Willke closes by mentioning several recently developed medical procedures which

save the only the mother's life, while doing everything presently possible to save

them both.

Willke's assessment of the legal profession's retarded reasoning is most

revealing:

"Why labor with the above concerns? Some would say that these cases are

not abortions because the intent is not to abort. However, lawmakers don't all

look at it this way. To the lawmaker, this woman could have died. This

procedure saved her life and "killed the baby." To most lawmakers and judges,

this is killing the baby to save the mother. However indirect that demise may

be, this procedure terminated that tiny life, and the law sees it as no different

from an "abortion".

So, when making laws to stop abortions, it certainly would be unanimously

agreed that treatment of the above conditions should not be forbidden. In the

world of law, the reasoning of moral theologians on the primary intent of the

action takes a second place to the pragmatic actuality of causing the death

of the baby. This pragmatic actuality says that there must be an exception

in the law forbidding abortion - an exception that allows for saving the life of

the mother.

While I do not think that in modern medical practice there ever exists a need

to do a surgical abortion to save the life of the mother, nevertheless in passing

laws there needs to be a clause permitting abortion "to prevent the death of

the mother, while doing everything possible to save them both.""

I agree that there is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice

of medicine where a preborn child's life need be intentionally destroyed

by procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.

A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of

his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either.

There is never a reason in law or in practice to advocate a "life of the mother" exception f

or abortion. We base this statement on testimony of many pro-life physicians over the

years, including John F. Hillabrand, M.D., Herbert Ratner, M.D., and Bernard N.

Nathanson, M.D. http://www.all.org/news/lomproc.htm

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS

1) In recognition of the constitutional principles regarding the right to an abortion

articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, but with higher regard for

the advance of science and the values of medicine, we recommend that

elective abortions not be performed. Although some abortions are said to be

performed to preserve the life of the mother, they are in fact, rarely necessary

for those purposes. Maternal health factors that are said to demand termination

of the pregnancy can also be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus.

When there is possibility of independent viability of the fetus, we argue for

ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery.

2) All pre-term deliveries should be done with the health and safety of both

mother and infant in mind, and, whenever possible, with a second physician

present to safeguard the life and health of the fetus.6

3) Decisions regarding the provision of life-sustaining medical treatment for

the newly born infant should then proceed as for any other infant or child.7,8