The case against 'Roe v. Wade' and abortion

A Letter to the Editor

The few arguments Sherman provides are of questionable accuracy. The statistic citing a drop in maternal mortality rates after Roe v. Wade neglects the effect of changes in antibiotics, which have had a much stronger impact on this figure. The sourceless statement that abortion rates were unchanged by Roe v. Wade is also difficult to believe considering the growth in availability of abortion treatment and the fact that one quarter of our potential population now dies from abortion.

Perhaps this is what the article should have been referring to in the statement "the first abortion-legal generation" has no conception of "the horrors we escaped."

The pro-life position rests on the fact that, as stated by Dr. Hyme Gordon, director of genetics at the Mayo Clinic, "by all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Within three weeks of conception the fetus has a beating heart, and by eight weeks all major systems have been formed. Studies have shown babies show recognition of music played to them when they are still in the womb--one of the many signs of the growing human consciousness.

Yet rather than concede to scientific reasoning, the pro-choice position sees it as an undecidable open question of personal philosophy. Life either begins at birth when the only difference in the child's status is her location, or magically starts at six months when legal restrictions begin to firmly apply. However, as the father of modern genetics, Dr. Jerome Lejure, notes, "to accept that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion.... It is plain experimental fact."

Sherman's article avoids legal explanations as much as it does scientific reasoning. Despite her emphasis on protecting Roe v. Wade she makes few statements about its arguments. Instead, the tone acts as if the logical rationale for abortion rights has fallen from the sky and Roe v. Wade is merely a tool the pro-choice position uses for official legal purposes. Sherman states "Knowing who Roe is and what Wade thought may not mean much" because Roe is now a pro-life activist and what Wade thought made more sense than the Supreme Court decision.

Indeed, the Supreme Court's invented right to "privacy" and incomprehensible disregard for human life is indefensible. She only mentions the case in detail to note that its arguments at viability outside the womb are eroding away.

To equate life with viability outside the womb, however, makes little sense. If a new invention changed the viability limit from the current 18 weeks to 15 weeks, would all children between those ages instantly become alive? Are people on artificial life support actually dead because they can't survive without it?

Despite Sherman's fears, we have confidence that several years from now people will still remember Roe v. Wade in connection to the ghastly tragedy of abortion--right next to the Supreme Court decision that will overturn it.

--David E. Anderson, JE '99, and Bernard A. Anderson, JE '99, co-presidents of Yale Undergraduate Students for Life

Back to Opinion...