
<p>In a recent 8-to-1 decision, The Alabama Supreme Court declared the embryo to be a “child” from the moment of conception. ; Before dealing with the specifics of the ruling, I say the Court was wrong in calling the embryo a “child”.</p>



<p>Declaring the viable embryo to be a “child” was not accurate by definition – and only adds to confusion. ; The embryo in the womb at its earliest stages is not a child by colloquial understanding of the word. ; The use of the word undermines the entire premise on which pro-life positions are advanced. ; It gives undeserved credibility to the claim that the person in the womb is NOT a child, ergo not a protectable human. ;</p>



<p>The pro-life position may be expressed in religious terms by some, but it is not founded on theology. While religious beliefs may be incidental in support of the life of the unborn, they are not the primary basis. ; The pro-life position is based on the secular civic belief in the value of human life – and the assumption of the inalienable civil (not just religious) rights of every human at every stage of development. ;</p>



<p>The pro-abortion position has taken hold in American society based on a number of narratives that misrepresent the facts. ; Here are some of the basic FACTS that refute the narratives.</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li>From the time of conception, we have a “developing human” being. ; That is an irrefutable FACT. ; Conception merges the female egg and male sperm, creating all the DNA of a specific and individual human being. ; In that biological coding is the gender, the hair and eye colors, skin tone, body proportions – based on the contributions of the mother AND the father. ; Everything down to a single hair follicle of hair on the left eyelid.</li>



<li>Contrary to the mantra, the developing human is NOT an integral part of the woman’s body. ; It is a separate life. ; It is not standard equipment, or something developed independently by a woman’s body, such as a wart or breast cancer. ; That is why we refer to an abortion as a “termination” – as opposed to the “removal” of a body part, such as a gall bladder. ; We are terminating – ending &#8212; the life of the developing human being. ; That is a biological FACT.</li>



<li>Contrary to the claim of a woman’s exclusive authority over the developing human being in her womb, it is the result of the contribution of a female AND a male.  ;An irrefutable FACT.  ;The disregard for the role – the responsibility, rights and interests – of the male runs contrary to American law and custom. ; It leads to the irrational situation in which the father has no rights in determining the life of HIS offspring – and yet can be held financially liable for the support of the child. ; It is unique to American jurisprudence that a person with absolute liability has no rights.</li>



<li>The claim that abortion is a woman’s health issue is bogus. ; The vast majority of abortions terminate healthy developing human beings in the wombs of healthy women. ; A woman’s health is potentially at greater risk from the procedure than from giving birth. ; More than 90 percent of abortions-on-demand are based on economics, convenience and lifestyle choices – not health.</li>



<li>The right to life – and all the other inalienable civil rights – are bestowed on a developing human being at some point. ; That is another FACT. ; The point of contention between the pro-life and pro-abortion communities is when that moment is reached.  ;Science has not been informative. ; It has been incapable of identifying the biological distinction when that developing human being becomes a person – a citizen – with the full range of constitutional rights. ; Most public opinion places that moment sometime during the gestation period – between conception and physical birth. ; However, when that moment occurs differs widely even among abortion proponents. ; Because the legal timing of abortions is contingent on imprecise public opinion, the decision is purely political – determined by politicians and courts – without any basis in science or logic.</li>
</ol>



<p>For the most part, the debate over abortion deals with pregnant women. ; The Alabama court turned the bright light of public attention onto a subtext – but important – issue. ; It addresses the entire subject of in vitro fertilization (IVF). ; It is a procedure most often used by couples who experience difficulties in achieving pregnancy by normal means.</p>



<p>The method is to have female eggs fertilized with male sperm in a laboratory. ; The embryos are allowed to grow for a few days and then are frozen for later implantation. ;  ;On average, 10 to 20 embryos are produced in each individual case. ; They can remain safely frozen for 10 years or longer. ; Occasionally, the ownership of the frozen embryos needs to be settled by a court – often involving a divorce.</p>



<p>Interestingly, in terms of frozen embryos, courts have held that the male donor – the father – has potentially equal ownership rights as the female. ; Not so when the embryo is in the womb. ; Is the old adage “possession is nine-tenths of the law” being applied?</p>



<p>While the issue of IVF-produced embryos has historically not been a hot topic in the public abortion debate, the Alabama Court ruling has opened the proverbial Pandora’s Box on the issue. ; Every one of those frozen embryos is an assumedly healthy developing human being. ; That is a scientific FACT. ; In a pro-life context, they each are imbued with the inalienable rights of personhood and citizenship – most fundamentally, the right to live. ; Although the embryo cannot be described as a child.</p>



<p>Most of those 10 to 20 developing human beings held on ice will be destroyed – their lives terminated. ; That is not only an unwanted outcome but is anticipated as part of the overall procedure. ; How does that differ from abortion based on convenience when the focus is on an embryo in the womb?</p>



<p>If one holds consistent pro-life belief &#8212; that protectable life begins at conception &#8212; there can only be one answer. ; IVF should be banned – with the possible exception of creating only one embryo at a time for the specific purpose of implantation.</p>



<p>The issue creates strange logic. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a self-proclaimed pro-lifer &#8212; said he believes in “&#8230; the sanctity of <strong>every human life</strong>. I always have and because of that I support IVF and its availability.&#8221; His definition of “every human life” apparently does not apply to embryos as developing human beings. That leaves him with no argument against abortion. His pro-life position crashes and burns. He is taking up the pro-abortion position – although I suspect he did not realize the implication of his words. Same with the Alabama state legislature and the pro-life governor, which have hastily undone the Court’s decision with legislation protecting IVF procedure<a>s.</a></p>



<p>I know that the idea of banning IVF is shocking and outrageous to a nation and a culture that lives with the knowledge that every embryo is a developing human being yet believes that human rights are arbitrarily bestowed by political mandate at some indeterminant time after the existence of the developing human being. ;</p>



<p>Fear not, my pro-abortion friends. ; I am under no illusion that such a ban will happen in the foreseeable future. ; Abortion is as deeply planted in the contemporary &#8212; as was slavery at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and human sacrifice was the norm for several ancient civilizations. ; I am still optimistic that sometime in the future life will conquer death.</p>



<p>There are two issues that often get interwoven with the topic of abortion. ; ; The first is the freezing of eggs and sperm for later fertilization. ; And contraceptive methods, drugs and devices that prevent fertilizations. ;</p>



<p>There have been efforts – most often from the religious sector – to ban those practices. ; That is utter nonsense. ; Prior to fertilization, we do not have a developing human being. ; Nature, itself, produces and “wastes” more eggs and sperm than it uses to produce a person. ; In fact, education and science should be deployed to do everything possible to encourage contraception in order to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of pregnancies.</p>



<p>Abortion is a tough issue because it is based on humanity’s most fundamental and intimate acts and most important functions – procreation. ; The pro-life position is based not only on science and logic, but on deeply held moral convictions. ; That is why pro-lifers pursue their cause even when it is politically disadvantageous – and will continue to do so.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Alabama Supreme Court creates another abortion controversy
