Press "Enter" to skip to content

Letter to the Editor: Daniel Currier

Forty-four years ago on January twenty-second, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion. One would think that would be the end of the discussion, but it is not the case. Roe v. Wade is still hotly debated. Emotions and opinion dominate the arguments when debating ethics on this topic. However, would it not be more beneficial to use reason and science in assessing the issue?

Why would anyone be opposed to removing the thing in the womb if it was just useless tissue from the mother or just a parasite? No justification would be necessary. On the other hand, if this thing in the womb is a separate human being, no justification would be adequate to take the life.

So is it just some tissue of mom? We know it can’t be, a genetic analyses on mom and this thing in the womb possess two unique human genetic fingerprints. In addition, about half possess “Y” chromosomes, unlike mom’s “X.” Furthermore, the blood type is very likely to be different too.

Since this thing in the womb has its own human genome, it is human, from fertilization onward. Real parasites don’t have human genomes. This genome is conducting this thing into a mature human being—and nothing else—so again it cannot be a parasite. Without exception, every mature human has gone through the exact same process of development. The womb is designed to hold this thing, and the womb and mother’s body are intentionally trying to keep it alive—it is supposed to be there. In addition, her body produced and released the egg in the first place, an egg that is designed to be united with the father’s sperm. It is almost as if the system is in some sort of collusion to grow this thing.

From a biological perspective, it fits the definition of alive: there is growth, metabolism, movement, adaptation, homeostasis, reproduction, response to stimulus and is composed of cells. In fact, there are only four differences between this thing in the womb and a cooing baby that you hold in your arms: its size, level of development, environment (the location separated by only a few inches), and degree of dependency. None of these differences demarcate between human and non-human.

It is unequivocal that the humanity of the thing in mommy’s womb is reinforced by biological evidence. If the argument concerning the ethics of abortion truly boils down to whether or not the fetus is human, then truly, is it not most rational to conclude that this thing is no less than an unborn human being? If this is so, then the child deserves protection, not death. Furthermore, the legal murder of almost sixty million innocent human beings over the past forty-four years must be mourned and condemned.


Daniel Currier

Copyright © 2023, The Scout, Bradley University. All rights reserved.
The Scout is published by members of the student body of Bradley University. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the University.