Obama’s Justice Department argued before the Supreme Court that killing a human embryo by preventing it from impanting “in his or her” mother’s uterus is not an abortion, therefore, drugs that kill embryos in this matter are not “abortion-inducing” drugs.
According to a collection of citations posted on a Princeton University website, as well as medical dictionaries, embryology texts, and a federal commission, fertilization of an embryo is the beginning of a new human life. Langman’s Medical Embryology says that “The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
Obama was, in essence, arguing that the idea of life beginning at conception is only a “religious conviction” even though a federal government commission, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission on Cloning Humans stated in 1997 that an embryo is “the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”
Abortion activists claim that the fact that life begins at conception is misleading because it confuses simple biological cell division both with actual pregnancy and with actual, legal personhood, which are, according to them, very different things. Their question is do women have the fundamental right to decide whether or not to commit themselves not only to the development of a life within their own bodies, but to a lifelong tie to another human being once a child is born. One activists claimed that even debating the “personhood” of eggs, embryos, and fetuses is also debating the personhood of women because if pro-lifers prevent them from murdering [my word] their own unborn babies, we take away not only their ‘choice’ but control over their bodies, a Constitutional right. I must have missed the part about murdering babies in the Constitution.
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., a Constitutional Lawyer asks: “Even if a woman’s body is her own property the question still remains whether the body of the unborn child is also the woman’s property. As a matter of biology, an unborn child is not “part of a woman’s body” in the same sense that her liver, heart, or other organs are. It is a separate entity involved in a special symbiotic relationship with the woman, but not part of her. Therefore, the unborn child cannot be the woman’s property in that sense.
To be sure, the unborn child lives inside the woman’s body. But an entity does not necessarily become the property of an individual because it is in or on that individual’s property. Even a trespasser on someone else’s land does not thereby become the landowner’s property, in the sense that the landowner may do whatever he will with the trespasser. The question remains whether the unborn child has a right or privilege to live within the woman until its birth. If it does, it cannot be the woman’s property to dispose of as she sees fit.
The argument that abortion is legitimate because a woman has a right to control her own body simply misses the point: which is, what right does a woman have when certain of her actions endanger the body, and therefore the life, of another person, the unborn child? “
The devaluing of human life did not end with Hitler or Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade simply unlocked the door to euthanasia, assisted suicide, the ongoing sanctity of life vs. quality of life debate and ObamaCare death panels. Where does it end?
“Don’t let the pro-choicers convince you that a fetus isn’t a human being. That’s how the whites dehumanized us… The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify what they wanted to do and not even feel they’d done anything wrong.” Rev. Jesse Jackson