Letter: The human right to choose

Student Body Vice President Mike Crenshaw recently wrote an article in the Dakota Student voicing his stance on abortion. Although the article may have implied certain stances on God, that was not the focus and is therefore not touched on in this rebuttal. Mike's support for his viewpoint was backed up by quite a few questions and an illogical argument. I'd like to clear up a few points for Mike and the readers of the Dakota Student. Mike, your intentions are no doubt honorable. I agree with you that life is a great thing but I disagree with two points.

First, "protecting" a fertilized egg leaves me to question what else we should protect. On the fifth day of human gestation, a blastocyst is formed. This blastocyst consists of between 70 and 100 cells. To put this into perspective, the brain of an average housefly contains over 100,000 cells. We all know the depressing fate of most houseflies.

I am, of course, not equating humans to houseflies, but I am arguing that an embryo is not worthy the protection you state it should have. It has the potential (i.e. genetic information) to become a human being. But is it? No. It is a bundle of cells the fraction of the size of a fly's brain.

If we are to pass legislation protecting embryos, we surely must pass legislation protecting houseflies.

If the idea of saving houseflies sounds ridiculous, simply look at the facts surrounding early abortion. According to Planned Parenthood, "Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed." The argument changes in the later stages of fetal development. As of yet, there is no conclusive scientific evidence proving or disproving that a late-term fetus feels pain during the abortion process. Because of this lack of information, I am currently against late-term abortions.

There is a common opinion among pro- life advocates that those who support a woman's right to choose are somehow "pro-abortion." This is completely false. I have not met one person who "supports" abortion. I have only met people who, like me, believe a woman has a right to choose what she does with her body and a fetus is, until birth, part of her body.

Abortions have saved the lives of countless women with high medical risks and have given rape victims a start at getting their life back together. Mike stated: "If an unlearned person has not yet had the opportunity to become educated, is it acceptable for the educated to take away that persons right to do so?

These ideas seem selfish and immoral, but the issue of abortion is quite similar." The issue is not quite similar because the people you use in your examples have lived lives. They are quite a bit more than a mass of 100 cells.

They are capable of higher cognitive abilities. Does an embryo have the potential for these things? Yes. But is it capable at the time of the abortion? Unless we're talking late-term abortion, the general scientific consensus is no.

Mike stated: "Not allowing something to live is as cruel as killing it, just like keeping a slave in chains is no more disgusting than enslaving a free man."

This metaphor is a long-shot. Embryos have no idea of pain or suffering, nor are they currently capable of experiencing such things. At the time of abortion, most embryos are not even aware they are alive. A just-fertilized egg is no more alive than it was before fertilization. Sperm cells are no more alive than they are just after fertilization. Together, the egg and sperm have a potential, but that potential (self- awareness) is a long way from being achieved. Potential for life and life itself are vastly different things. This approach may seem harsh, and even "godless," but it is scientific fact. Mike stated: "Perhaps the worst crime isn't ending a life that already exists, but keeping that life from ever existing in the first place."

So, what is the difference? In this context, by ending a life that already exists, I assume you mean murdering an average human, but then you state that keeping a life from ever existing is far worse.

Following that logic, an embryo has not lived or existed, which goes against the very argument your article intended to support. Obviously, there are a wide variety of views on the topics discussed. I hope this has cleared up a few issues. Of course, I mean no disrespect towards Mike or anyone with an opposing viewpoint. I merely felt that the questions and statements brought up in Mike's article deserved a response. It is imperative that religious viewpoints not obscure scientific facts when laws are passed in this country. Let it be known that I, as well as those who support the scientific method and share the pro-choice stance, love life as much, if not more than as those we disagree with. I have confidence that one day there will be a consensus on the issue.

Ryan McBride Communications