Human life is science, not faith

Human life is science, not faith.

With the recent overturning of the Supreme Court Decision Roe v. Wade, I have noted that many of the people unhappy with the overturning criticize that Christianity and the Bible have influenced the overturning, and that science must prevail.  They are upset that religious views are being imposed on the whole country.

What these critics do not realize, is that human life is not about faith, but science.

If you Google the simple question, “when does human life begin?” the very first result is from an article on the website of Princeton University.  It reads, “life begins at fertilization with the embryo’s conception.  Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes and oocyte and together they form a zygote.  Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).”

As I sifted through the various results, I came across an article from a website titled “Evolution News and Science Today” which asserted, “from a scientific standpoint, at the moment of fertilization of the egg by a sperm, a completely new organism is present.  The organism is not a part of the mother’s body although he or she is located within the mother’s body.  The argument that this unique human being present in the mother’s womb from the moment of fertilization is a part of the mother’s body until sometime later in gestation is, from a scientific viewpoint, bizarre.”

The question that arises from the abortion debate precisely is “when does human life begin?”  If a human life does not begin at the moment of conception, then what is inside the woman’s body?  Those cells that are quickly dividing and multiplying will not grow up to be a panda bear or an orangutan.  The clump of cells at the moment of my conception has grown and developed to the clump of cells that I am today.  It is not an issue of potential or what those cells will become, those cells are already a human.

As I listen to the uproar over abortion rights denied, I find myself asking, “what is the alternative?  Killing the baby?”  Many argue that children will be brought into a world where they will suffer.  Is the solution killing the child so he or she will not suffer?  Or is the solution remedying the sources of the suffering?  We kill the sufferer rather than remedying the suffering.  Kill the baby as soon as you find out he has down syndrome, rather than fighting for a society that is open and compassionate toward those who are different or have a handicap.  That’s not compassionate – that macabre.

The Pro-life movement as a whole is backed up by many religious groups and people, however, the Pro-life movement must focus on arguments that do not cite faith or religion.  An argument that cites the Bible does not help me when I am speaking with someone who is not Christian.  The Pro-life movement must move forward speaking of the science behind its thinking.

Since 1973 when the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down, science has advanced tremendously.  We know so much more about gestation and genetics.  Imaging has advanced to levels that we can see babies smiling and giving thumbs up in the womb.  After fifty years, taking account of how much science has taught us about life in the womb, the Supreme Court must follow the science and update its ruling on abortion.

The Pro-life community is confident because we know that science is on our side.  Recently, my neighboring parish, Saint Boniface in Springfield, Georgia, had some pro-life signs vandalized.  The picture on this post is the least offensive of the vandalized signs.  On the other one, the vandals wrote “F*** children.”

Time will prove who is on the right side of this argument.