A friend of mine recently gave me a copy of an official report released by the United States Senate Subcommittee. Apparently they invited medical and scientific officials from all across the world to discuss the scientific status of a fetus. There wasn’t any debate. All agreed that human life began at some point during the initial conception except one who said he didn’t know. Here’s a quote from the report.
“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”
Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981
I did some further snooping on the internet and found that the medical and scientific community is in universal agreement on the fact that human life begins upon conception. This leads me to a few questions. Does scientific life necessarily coincide with moral life? In a secular society do we have room to make judgments based on moral perspective when science is out of sync with our observation?
I mean, Obama promise to ‘put science in its rightful place.’ But, if we do that doesn’t that mean we have to overturn Roe v. Wade? I mean, I know Roe v. Wade didn’t expressly say that a fetus wasn’t human. But if it is human-and scientifically it apparently is-then why do the laws concerning born children not apply? Is it any less constitutional to legally require a woman to carry a child for 8-9 months than it is to force a parent to labor for eighteen years to provide for a born child?
Thank you for you time.
Read another response by Peter Smith