Abortion and 19th century science

Great comment on the Justice halts birth control mandate post from Kerner:

The majority opinion of Roe vs. Wade balances the “right to privacy” of the mother against the “potential human life” of the unborn child. Basically, a small group of men who were born in the 19th century, applied 19th century knowledge about biology, genetics and obstetrics to determine that a human fetus was not really human and therefore not entitled to Constitutional protection. By considering this as purely a women’s rights issue, we ended up with Roe vs. Wade. . . .

This is one of those cases in which science (meaning secular scientific advancement) actually supports the socially conservative view. Virtually everything we have learned about biology, genetics and obstetrics in the last 40 years supports the view that the human foetus, and even the human embryo, is a unique human life and not an amorphous part of “a woman’s body”. That being the case, a society that requires parents, under penalty of law, to nurture and protect their children ought to severely restrict abortion. If a parent can go to jail for actively hurting, or even neglecting the welfare, of a helpless infant, then there is no logical reason why that same parent shouldn’t be similarly punished for hurting or neglecting the welfare of an unborn child.