The question high court didn't answer

There has been much written and said about abortion and Roe v. Wade. Almost all of the arguments for abortion being legal are based on the "rights of women over their bodies" created by the Supreme Court in its 1973 decision in Roe v Wade. However, very little is said about the real issue which is, "when does human life begin?" In Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court said, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Then, however, the Supreme Court incredibly went on to do just the opposite of what it just said it could not do and that is to assume that life does not begin at conception by creating a right for women to have abortions. Obviously, if life does begin at conception, then killing the fetus would be murder and a redundant violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

In addition, since 1973, there has been a lot of scientific work done on this issue. The most significant work has been done by Maureen Condic, who in 2008 was a Senior Fellow at the Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person and Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine, BS issued a white paper titled "When Does Human Life Begin?" Her conclusion, after much detailed scientific research, was that all the elements of human life are present at the moment of conception. Her work has never been successfully challenged by anyone.

Roland G. Ley

Arlington Heights