Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, March 3, 1995 TAG: 9503030055
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: J. CARL POINDEXTER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
No scientific proof has been produced, and (prima facie) none can be produced, that a person or a human life begins at the moment of conception, i.e. with the fertilization of the female egg.
As for the beginning of the heartbeat of the fetus, this is no more significant biologically than the fact that male sperm frantically wiggle and thrash about in attempts to find and fertilize an egg.
Accordingly, there is no scientific or biological reason to view the fertilized collection of fetal cells as being any more sacrosanct and any more entitled to culminate in the birth of a person than the millions of sperms and eggs that daily are willy-nilly denied union (fertilization) and further life.
The widespread existence of frozen, viable test-tube embryos casts doubt on the whole idea of fetal rights, to say the least. The pro-lifers' claim that a fetus is a human being is tantamount to a claim that an acorn is an oak tree. At best this is an article of faith or belief merely, not a fact.
It is noteworthy that the orthodox claim of the bishops of the Catholic Church is that it is a violation of God's law for people to use artificial methods of birth control, a view that is logically consistent with the religiously based anti-abortion beliefs of the pro-life movement in general. As a matter of logical fact, the rationale of the pro-lifers' case against abortion calls for the outlawing of artificial methods of contraception.
Fortunately, there is little likelihood that this intolerance of birth control will be made law, because of the absurdity of such a law in the view of most people. However, this view of the right of women (and men) to use artificial means of birth control undoubtedly bolsters the general public belief that women, not the government, should have and continue to have the right of choice in respect to abortion as well as contraceptive rights.
It is a sobering fact, however, that until recent times, Connecticut had a law that made it a crime for even husbands and wives to use contraceptive measures of birth control, a law the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional on the ground that it violated citizens' ``right of privacy.'' Accordingly, one would think that the Supreme Court should rule with due consistency by upholding women's privacy right of personal choice without onerous restrictions, rather than hamstring such right.
Nature has so designed the human species as to condemn its females alone to the contingency and rigors of pregnancy, wanted or unwanted. Therefore, prima facie, women and only women should have the right to determine the law governing abortion.
It can hardly be denied that colossal arrogance and chutzpah are required of men for them to exert the intrusive claim to equal rights with women in deciding the public law applicable in respect to abortion.
It is true that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the denial to any ``person'' of the equal protection of the law, including its benefits as well as its burdens. Presumably, this provides tacit color of legal authority for the heretofore unchallenged right of anti-abortionist men to participate equally with women in the political processes by which women's abortion rights are formulated and embodied in law. However, this is a categorically fallacious view of the constitutional concept of ``the equal protection of the law.''
This constitutional right applies where, and only where, the persons involved are similarly situated as a class of persons and as a matter of fact. Therefore, because women - never men - are subject to pregnancies, this fundamental fact of biological dissimilarity of situation of men vis-a-vis women disentitles men to assert a constitutional right to exert an equal right to seek imposition of their abortion views on women.
Admittedly, all citizens have an interest in the growth and the circumstances of the growth of the nation's population. But this is a general and abstract kind of interest of the population's male component, which in no wise rises to a compelling interest of the state so as to override women's profoundly personal right to choose abortions if wanted.
The most zealous and dogmatic groups promoting the cause of overturning women's abortion rights base their claims on a religious ideology, directly or indirectly. As such, there is a serious question as to whether their objective contravenes the First Amendment prohibition against government enforcement of religious tenets on those who do not believe in them. It appears, therefore, that due concern for this encroachment of First Amendment rights is not being duly addressed by our governmental authorities, especially our courts of law.
Because of the high merits of the unique constitutional rights of women vis-a-vis men, as outlined above, shouldn't the champions of women's abortion rights mount a federal court case for a declaratory judgment and an injunction against male voting on the unique rights issue of women's abortion rights?
J. Carl Poindexter is a retired professor of economics and government who now lives at Smith Mountain Lake in Franklin County.
by CNB