Texas

Andy Puzder: Biden ignores the science of abortion – he follows politics on the question of when life begins

New arrivalYou can now listen to Fox News articles.

The Supreme Court recently rejected it for procedural reasons banning Texas law prohibiting abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy. The court clearly stated that the decision was “not based on the constitutional conclusions of Texas law.”

Nevertheless, President Biden immediately denounced the decision as “an unprecedented assault on women’s constitutional rights under the Roe v. Wade case.” Well, it was certainly better than talking about Afghanistan, employment, inflation and borders.

Biden then sought to ease the other side of this controversial issue, respecting the views of those who “believe that life begins at the moment of conception,” but he “agrees” with them. “I didn’t.

Jonathan Taree: Biden’s Constitutional Workaround-President Doesn’t Seem Seeing Government Limits

Much has been done on social media about the fact that the statement contradicts Biden’s previous statement on this issue and his Catholic beliefs. But perhaps even more worrisome was his willingness to ignore “science,” despite his frequent and repetitive commitment to “follow science.”

The science of when human life begins is not a serious controversy. For example, on the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) website,[t]The superiority of human biology research confirms that human life begins with conception, or fertilization. Upon fertilization, humans as a whole emerge as members of the genetically distinct, individualized, zygosity, living human organism, the Homo sapiens species, and only in an environment suitable for growth and development. I need it. The difference between an adult and a mating individual is one of the morphologies, not the natural one. ”

Click here to sign up for our opinion newsletter

The word “joint” (basically a fertilized egg) is not something you hear every day, but the science behind the ACP statement is straightforward.

As a young lawyer in the early 1980s, I was one of a group of St. Louis lawyers who defended an individual charged with “sit-in” charges at an abortion clinic. We have adopted a justification defense. This required evidence that these defendants violated the misdemeanor trespass law in order to achieve higher social value. Our first task was to convince judges and juries that human life began with the notion of scientific facts rather than personal or religious beliefs.

More from the opinion

It turned out to be an easier task than I expected. Our medical professionals laid it out as follows:

First, we know that we have been from the time of conception Individual This is because the foetation has a unique genetic structure that is different from the mother, father, or other human beings who have ever lived.

Second, we know what we have human The foetation has the correct number of chromosomes.

Finally, we know what we have life Because you can see the first cells grow. In so-called test-tube baby surgery, you can literally see human cells grow as a result of fertilization.

Science is very clear-individual human life begins with conception.

Even the Supreme Court’s ruling at Roe does not endorse Biden, who ignores science. At Roe, The Supreme Court avoided the question of when human life first began by claiming that the word “human” used in the Article 14 amendment does not include the foetation. Therefore, the foetation does not have the right to life granted by the amendment.

The legality of abortion may include balancing the value of early human life to the interests of the mother, but science is indisputable-individual human life begins with conception and It ends with death.

Texas also insisted on Roe Since life begins with factual conception (rather than the Constitution), the state is “strongly interested in protecting that life from conception and after conception.” The court once again circumvented this problem, saying, “There is no need to solve the difficult question of when life begins. People trained in the fields of medicine, philosophy and theology have reached a judicial consensus at this point. If not. The development of human knowledge is not in a position to speculate on the answer. ”

However, Texas did not ask the court to infer or consider philosophy or theology. It asked the court to look at the scientific evidence and make a decision.

I don’t know of any other cases in which the court ignored medical facts until the scientific community reached an agreement with philosophers and theologians. If scientists, philosophers, and theologians wait for an agreement to be reached before deciding on such facts, the court cannot decide on a case that contains scientific evidence.

In conclusion, the court did not decide when human life actually began. It simply avoided problems that could not be addressed directly while creating the right to abortion. The issue may reappear in the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case related to the Mississippi Abortion Law that the court actually agreed to hear for substantive reasons rather than procedural reasons. there is.

Click here to get the Fox News app

The legality of abortion may include balancing the value of early human life to the interests of the mother, but science is indisputable-individual human life begins with conception and It ends with death.

President Biden can ignore that evidence, his previous remarks, and his professed beliefs in faith. He can choose to “follow politics” rather than science. At this point, it certainly makes political sense for him to shift his attention from the many failures of his administration. But it does not change the medical / scientific evidence. it is what it is.

Click here for more information on ANDY PUZDER

Andy Puzder: Biden ignores the science of abortion – he follows politics on the question of when life begins

Source link Andy Puzder: Biden ignores the science of abortion – he follows politics on the question of when life begins

Back to top button