<body><div><figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=0YpcXC_0wPysZiR00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=0YpcXC_0wPysZiR00" width="1569" height="1045" ><figcaption>The Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision in June 2020, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion, upheld for nearly a half century, no longer exists. (Mark Schiefelbein/AP)</figcaption></figure>Let’s talk about abortion. It is well to note that our conversation is only possible because our mothers decided against it. Whether our mothers made a good decision is ours to contemplate.At the beginning, two definitions are usefully made. A human fetus is the unborn young from, more or less, the end of the eighth week after conception until the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo, which is a collection of cells implanted in the uterine wall. In the later stages of development, the fetus shows all the main recognizable features of the mature person. That is what medical science tells us and nothing more. You and I must decide whether the embryo or fetus has any status that demands protection.That leads us to an overwhelming question. The collection of cells that is the embryo has the potential to become a human being. The fetus becomes recognizable as a human being in the making. Does that matter? There is a wide divergence of opinion as to how this question should be answered. The possible responses have both moral and political implications. In our time and place, most of us agree that a human being has the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.As a moral proposition, if you answered “yes” to the above posed question, then you are opposed to the legal right to abortion. A “no” response means that politically, and possibly morally, you favor having the abortion alternative available. It does not mean that you favor abortion, but only that you want its availability as an option. It may or may not mean that you deny that the fetus is a human being.As a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal succinctly put it: “For those who believe in individual rights, there can be no right to enslave a mother to the needs of a fetus.” Would the same sentiment be expressed if we substitute “1-month-old baby” for “fetus”? Likely not. It all depends on how we define “fetus,” whether as a baby-in-the-making, deserving of our protection, or as something imperfectly analogous to a cancerous growth. If you concur with the letter writer’s opinion, then you may be under some obligation to indicate just what you think a fetus is.In passing, let me digress and comment on a political ad that we in Pennsylvania are regularly seeing on television. In opposing one of the candidates for the U.S. Senate, it is emphasized that he opposes abortion “even in cases of rape or incest.” If you believe that the fetus has the right to be protected as a human being, then you are morally bound not to make distinctions based on how that human being was conceived. Obviously, this does not imply any support for rape or incest.Analogies are sometimes useful, although often misused. I’ll take a chance. The Ten Commandments imposed moral obligations and prohibitions that were once widely accepted and, given that wide acceptance, came to underpin many of our social behavior laws. Today, we are more selective in our acceptance of those obligations and prohibitions. Most of us still agree “Thou shalt not steal” (the seventh or eighth commandment, depending on your tradition) should be legally enforced. And so it mostly is. But, its enforcement is more nuanced than it once was. By contrast, the commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” is often acknowledged in the breaking. Although you may have a moral or social opinion about it, we no longer impose laws that punish adultery. Once, of course, we did and in some countries its breech may still warrant death by stoning. Customs and mores linger or whither.Where there is a moral issue, and a wide difference of opinion, the government should be silent. A small majority should not be allowed to impose its beliefs on a large minority. That is my position and “yes” it seems to put me on the pro-choice side of the argument. My views may not be yours. I’m willing to discuss, but quite adamant about not wanting to impose any of my views or convictions.George Heitmann is professor emeritus of management science at Penn State (University Park) and professor emeritus of economics at Muhlenberg College.</div></body>

Mountain View, CA

NewsBreak

Your View: Abortion controversy raises moral, ethical and medical questions

Let’s talk about abortion. It is well to note that our conversation is only possible because our mothers decided against it. Whether our mothers made a good decision is ours to contemplate. At the beginning, two definitions are usefully made. A human fetus is the unborn young from, more...