You are going to have a wonderful opportunity to stand for the unborn as rhetoric over abortion heats up in confirmation proceedings for the recent Supreme Court Justice nominee. Many will cry for honoring the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in Rowe v. Wade as settled judicial precedent seeking a commitment to not review and possibly reverse that opinion. But are there good reasons a court opinion should be reviewed? What if answers to some of the cornerstone assumptions have changed?
Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in his Rowe v. Wade majority opinion, "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."
Consider this story: You are the foreman on a demolition crew about to collapse a ten story parking garage. It also happens to be "Bring your kids to work day", so you brought your 8 year-old daughter, Suzie, and 6 year-old son, Mike, to work so they can see what you do.
You've just completed a top to bottom walkthrough of the structure and are about to give the "Blow it" command when you realize your daughter and son are missing. You last saw them when they were walking with you through the structure.
Would you go ahead and give the "Blow it" command given the uncertainty of the location of your children and the possibility they might be playing in the structure? Of course not. You know the explosions and the collapse of the building on them would be certain death if they are in there. You would hold the demo and go look for your children.
In his majority opinion, Justice Blackmun is actually saying that since there was no consensus when life began, it's ok to kill the unborn. In other words, I don't know where my children are but let's go ahead and blow the structure.
Consider Justice Blackmun's qualifier, "at this point in the development of man’s knowledge." In the intervening 45 years we have learned a lot about the unborn - to the point that nearly every Embryology textbook affirms that "life begins at conception." DNA testing affirms the unborn are human beings from conception. We now know the unborn is a separate and distinct human being from the mother. That is settled science.
Today there is more than sufficient evidence and harmony in science, philosophy, and religion that the unborn is a human being from conception and with a right to life. This compels us to give an answer contrary to the one Justice Blackmun reached. Stop the demolition! There's a precious human person in there!
Be prepared to stand for the unborn. Below are some links to get more details on the scientific and the philosophical case for life: