The court did not come to a conclusion on when life begins.
The reasoning of the court on this point could hardly have been more specious.
“Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. 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.”
Actually, the medical discipline is not so ambivalent:The development of a human begins with fertilization… (
Langman’s Medical Embryology)
It is a general judicial rule not to decide things that don’t have to be decided.
That is reasonable. What is not reasonable is allowing a life to be destroyed without determining whether or not what is being destroyed is or is not human life.
The court actually spent a significant amount of time surveying the various views on that question, from modern days back to ancient times. They addressed Catholic dogma on the topic, though whether they got that right is debateable (see discussion at
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=735203)
Their “survey” was little more than an attempt to show that, since the question of the beginning of life was unknown in the past, it was equally unknown today. In fact, raising the point about theology and philosophy simply deflects attention from the point that this is a purely scientific question. It implies that it is merely theoretical, a question about which those with different theologies or philosophies may reasonably disagree. Thus their remark that*The latter
[life begins at conception] is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church.
*This implies that it is simply a question of faith, of belief, and that the church has some doctrine expressing this. Neither is accurate. It is the conclusion of science, which the church accepts, but about which she has no doctrine. It is not her place to form doctrines on matters of science.
It makes absolutely no sense to allow abortion prior to viability, and also recognize that*With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb.
*What does “
life outside the mother’s womb” mean? If it is born is it not at least then a baby? But if it is a baby outside the womb, what is it when still inside? Also, what could the word “
meaningful” possibly mean in this context? It is no wonder that Roe is still seen as a reprehensible decision. It’s “reasoning” cannot improve with time.
Ender
