8 June 2003
By
Fr. Michael Dolan
This week’s article: “Roe v. Wade, Part 3”
Now comes the truly incredulous part.
The Court stated that the Constitution does not define “person” in so many words. That is the last reference to “person.” The Court now switched its focus to “life,” because Texas in their position statement in defense of the unborn urged that apart from the 14th Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy and that, therefore, the state has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. To which the Court answered, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.” Astounding! An unbelievably frank admission of the Court’s inability to judge the case. The Court reasoned that since a consensus cannot be reached by those who should know, i.e., biologists, philosophers and theologians, “the judiciary…is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
Ordinarily, the statement should be cause for disqualifying the Court from further deliberation on the matter. After all, Justice Blackmun in reflecting later on the decision said, “I really resent that it had to come before the Court because it is more a medical and moral problem,” and Chief Justice Burger in his concurring opinion stated, “I am somewhat troubled that the Court has taken notice of various scientific and medical data in reaching its conclusion…” But the outcome had been decided beforehand and now the argument had to be built to give at least some semblance of credibility.
The effort was patently contrived and arbitrary.
No credible biologist would deny that life begins at fertilization. Indeed, the proponents of abortion affirm that. The big names in Planned Parenthood hierarchy, Sanger and Gutmacher, acknowledged it. But the Court plodded doggedly on citing “substantial problems” in accepting fertilization as being the beginning of life. So once again the gears were shifted. Now Blackmun sought a time at which the state’s interest in the “potential” human life could become compelling, and they latched on to the “period of viability” as if there was a definite point in time where a switch was turned on and the baby was now alive. Be aware this was not a time that they were willing to confer personhood and thereby protection under the 14th Amendment but only a time at which significant legal consideration might be extended to the developing child.
May God bless you always,
Father Mike
Next week: Roe v. Wade continued