Roe v. Wade revisited

This week the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments on a case that could result in the landmark ruling Roe v. Wade being overturned. I hope it is not overturned. Let me explain why.

First let me make clear that I don’t like abortion. I don’t think anyone does. I don’t think those who believe it is immoral, tantamount to baby-killing, are unreasonable people or fanatics. I used to believe that, too. It wasn’t until I fully understood how insignificant man is in the universe and how we are, like all other living creatures, just following the instincts preprogrammed into us by natural selection to protect our young that drives that view. Our fetuses, like our adult selves, are just bags of molecules.

But you don’t have to approve of abortion to want Roe to remain the law. You can be pro-life. This is because Roe actually creates lives and brings babies into the world that wouldn’t have been born otherwise. How? you ask. Two of my grandchildren were born through the use of surrogates. The surrogates who bore them were not right-to-lifers. In other words, they weren’t willing to die if there was a medical problem with the pregnancy; they demanded the right to save their own lives by having an abortion. Since this is Texas I’m talking about, that would not have been possible had it not been for Roe. Because of Roe, the contracts giving them that right were valid and enforceable. Fortunately, so far as I know, abortion never became necessary and never was considered. No babies, or fetuses, if you prefer, had to die for my grandchildren to be born, but Roe was absolutely necessary. People who can’t give birth themselves should have the joy of parenthood, the joy of their own child with Grandma’s dimples or Grandpa’s oversized feet, of Dad’s innate musical talent, not someone else’s child. The law should remain as it is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.