“Is It True That Science Had No Consensus on the Beginning of Human Life in 1973?”

Not at all.

I urge you to check out the Blood Money website and blog.  The latest post addresses the seemingly willful ignorance of scientific facts that were well-known in 1973 when the Roe v. Wade decision was made.

We still have science deniers today who insist that they just don’t know when new human beings are created.  Ironically, most of these are in the science-worshiping camp that likes to pretend that Christians are anti-science and live by the circular reasoning that we can only trust what comes from science or that science trumps all other ways of gathering information.

Read the post for a clear and thorough recap of scientific knowledge about when life begins.  The Roe v. Wade decision was based on bad ideology and politics, not science.

During his majority opinion during the Roe v Wade trial of 1973, Justice Harry Blackmun said,

The judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to… resolve the difficult question of when life begins… since those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus.” (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113. 1973)

The science had been “settled” for a long time and what we have learned since then just reaffirms that.  Just a couple of the many facts noted:

In the 1860′s, a movement was led by medical doctors(not religious enthusiasts) to take the common law a step futher. These doctors declared that that unborn children at anystage were human. In fact, as early as 1857, the American Medical Association stated, “the independent and actual existence of the child before birth as a living being is a matter of objective science.” As a result of this movement, laws were passed in all 50 states prohibiting abortions. These were the laws on the books that were challenged at a federal level in 1973 by the Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions.

. . .

Did you catch that final entry? They had already cracked the genetic code 12 years before Roe V Wade! They already knew that a human embryo contained a uniquegenetic signature, never to be repeated. They knew the embryo was self-propelling, containing all of the information it would need to grow into an adult human being. They knew the genetic information in the embryo was not the same as the genome of the mother–in other words, they knew that the embryo was not the mother’s body, since every cell in her body carries exclusively her own DNA.

And, of course, even if Blackmun & Co. had not been so (deliberately?) mistaken they still should have erred on the side of life.  After all, if you aren’t sure if a medical procedure kills an innocent human being but realize it is a possibility, shouldn’t that make you think twice?

I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.

7 thoughts on ““Is It True That Science Had No Consensus on the Beginning of Human Life in 1973?””

  1. The long and the short of it is that those in pro-abort camp want the freedom and right to kill, and not be inconvenienced by having to raise a child. They don’t want to know the truth, because it doesn’t make their lives convenient. Sad.

    Like

    1. You correct;they want to live the lifestyle they want regardless of what science and truth says. I see&hear it on twitter every day, ‘bodily autonomy’, pregnancy enslaves women, women have right to say who can have access to her body&inhabit it…blah,blah blah…more reason it needs to be illegal. This is a humane&civil society and abortion is an abomination. If they want to perform illegal abortions, risking their lives and their unborn child they should serve the time for the crime!

      Like

  2. You’re “too pro science to be pro choice.” Well, sure. Science agrees with you on that topic. Funny how science goes out the window on others, though.

    Like

    1. Hey Mark, long time no comment. There are dozens of branches of science. I don’t buy into one portion of one branch — the one that is driven by philosophical naturalism, not science.

      Do you make the same comment to atheist pro-choicers?

      Like

      1. Yes, it has been a long time. I had to drop by and see what you were up to.

        Hmm, atheist pro choicers… That would surely be *most* pro choicers by a long shot. I can’t say that many of them would claim to be leaning on science for their stance. They just think pro-choice somehow is better for society. “Who’s going to raise all those unwanted babies…” kind of stuff.

        Some of them do lean on science though, I’m sure. Those people are a lot like you, just on the opposite side if the spectrum. They pick and choose what parts of science to believe, just not the same parts you choose.

        I happen to believe you are correct on this topic. If only you could be as consistent with science as you are with your religion, you’d see that, clearly, the bible is – after all – just another book. A good read, but just too rediculous to take seriously.

        Like

      2. They just think pro-choice somehow is better for society. “Who’s going to raise all those unwanted babies…” kind of stuff.

        I think your assessment is accurate and am glad you don’t hold that view. I’m glad they aren’t in charge of orphanages!

        They pick and choose what parts of science to believe, just not the same parts you choose.

        That’s possible, I suppose. Or perhaps their worldview leads them to ignore the evidence in both cases. They believe that the universe came from nothing and that life came from non-life, and there is zero proof for both of those. The evidence for macro-evolution is a joke, as they continually conflate macro and micro. I encourage you to read Signature in the Cell by Stephen Myer — http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297431898&sr=8-1 .

        If only you could be as consistent with science as you are with your religion, you’d see that, clearly, the bible is – after all – just another book. A good read, but just too rediculous to take seriously.

        I am consistent with both. I follow the facts and logic where they lead.

        If you want something that is truly ridiculous, consider those who philosophy-masquerading-as-science leads them to conclude that something can come from nothing — http://tinyurl.com/4bjahbg .

        Also, consider just a few facts taught in the oldest books of the Bible:

        1. The quantity of stars is akin to the number of grains of sand — http://tinyurl.com/ykzcnfb . How did Moses know that thousands of years before people realized there were more than just ~1,100 stars?
        2. Why does the opening sentence of the Bible boldly proclaim the universe came into being at a point in time? Was that just a lucky coin flip or inside information about a scientific fact that wouldn’t be settled for thousands of years?
        3. Job 38:31 “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loose the cords of Orion?” — go study the properties of these constellations — one that is breaking up and one that is bound together — and ask how the author got so lucky.

        The Bible isn’t a science textbook. It is a book about God, humanity and his rescue plan for lost sinners. But there are some amazing scientific truths that skeptics never seem to get curious about.

        Like

      3. The Bible a good read? I hear people say this but I don’t ever believe they are being serious. I think they only say this because they know that they have nothing on which to base morality except a contagion of opinion; and knowing this they want to reserve a little credibility for something that they know is a source for objective truth. I’d be interested in knowing the parts of the Bible you find are a good read.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s