Paul, you are misunderstanding. Following long established common law and cultural norms, the woman’s life would take precedence in a situation where the woman’s and the baby’s physical lives were at risk. What we are saying is that we must recognize that TWO human beings’ lives are at stake in every abortion decision. Both must be treated with respect.

Should the baby’s life be ended for eternity in order to avoid the months-long consequences of pregnancy? We are a compassionate people. There are pathways forward – either parenting or adoption that enrich, support and value both the woman and the baby. 

Why wouldn’t that fertilized egg have the same right to life? With its own unique set of DNA, that “fertilized egg” is a human being. A human is a human. The position of valuing one human life over another is the very basis of oppression throughout the world. Every human life has intrinsic value. When we start to put people in categories, we are all eventually put at risk.

Our nation’s body of law is all about establishing universal, objective human rights – that are not subject to the whims of bureaucrats, parents, or any other subjective decision maker. Our human rights should be protected on the objective basis of humanity. Please consider that the first right enumerated in our Declaration of Independence is the “Right to Life”. That right forms the foundation for all our rights.

Maria, we care about ALL human beings. Did you know that scientifically there is no genetic difference between the beginning human being and any other human? When we start to put people in categories, we all eventually are put at risk. Please do not continue to pit women against the unborn. We do not defer to the stronger party at the expense of the weaker individual in any other area of life. A human is a human. We can support both.  

Also, abortion harms many women emotionally. Please read Abortion and subsequent mental health: Review of the literature by Carlo V. Bellieni MD,Giuseppe Buonocore MD, PhD in the journal, Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences.  Also, are you aware that sex selection abortion is overwhelming aimed at females – another atrocity that abortion perpetuates – against females.

Samantha, your original post was that personhood began at birth. The baby is WAY past a clump of cells at that point. 

Also, we have never claimed that the baby should have more rights than the woman – only that the baby’s equal right to life as a member of the human family should be respected.

Ken, we are not claiming superior protection for the unborn but rather equal protection based on the scientific, objective criterion of core identity. We again refer you to Steve Jacobs landmark study in 2019. The results showed that the vast majority of biologists – across various cultures – affirmed that each human life begins at conception. Jacobs wrote, “I found that 5,337 biologists (96%) affirmed that a human’s life begins at fertilization…” 

Here are some additional quotes from medical experts as to the identity of the beginning human being:  

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”     

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”     

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” It is not our idea of conception or human identity that we are proposing. It is rather, established medical and scientific knowledge.  

What happened to those women was tragic.  However, their situations have far more to do with bad medical decision-making and care by the physicians than bad law.  Why did those physicians wait so long to provide care?  Please also remember that bad care happens in every area of medicine.  Sadly, that is why it is called “practicing” medicine and that is why doctors rightly get sued sometimes – they make bad decisions. 

Did you know that in the first 16 months following the Dobbs decision, there were 71 abortions under the medical-necessity exception, according to data from the Texas Health and Human Services Commission?  No physicians have faced disciplinary actions for those medical decisions.  The law works to protect the women and the unborn humans when correctly applied. The better choice would have been for those women to sue their doctors and the medical facilities who failed them.

Regarding the unborn, on what scientific basis do you deny their humanity and right to care?  On what basis do you deny the fundamental human right to life to unborn, genetic human beings?

Eric, the woman’s life, of course, should take precedence in a situation where she is in physical danger. That is correct long-established medical practice and law. There are cases where a doctor makes a poor medical decision and delays a therapeutic abortion. 

However, poor decision making by doctors occurs in every area of medicine. Sadly, doctors are not infallible and that will continue. However, the vast majority of abortions are purely elective – not due to medical issues. 

Michael, it most certainly matters when a human life begins. According to the Constitution, we are each “created equal”. Once a human being’s life begins they have “human rights”.

The question of life is fundamentally a scientific, biological issue. At fertilization, all 46 chromosomes scientifically identifying the being as a human being are in place. 

You contend that the fetus’s human life does not have the same value as an adult’s human life. On what scientific or philosophical basis do you make that contention?  

The position of valuing one human life over another is the very basis of oppression. Every human life has intrinsic value. When we start to put people in categories, we are all eventually put at risk.