Is it time to reconsider Roe v. Wade?

It has been almost 50 years  since the landmark ruling was passed down by the US Supreme Court.   While it could be argued that some benefits were derived from the decision; such as the mitigation of "back allley" abortions, dangerous home remdies which often damaged or killed both mother and fetus.  However, on the other hand, there have been many disastrous results, possibly not seen by the Justices, that emerged. Perhaps, the worst unforeseen result was "abortion on demand".  At the core of the problem is the question of personhood.  Does the mother have the right to end the development of a person?  While no one denies the woman the right to her own body, one must ask if the woman has the right to end the distinct life that is developing within her.  

Justice Blackmun suggested the key to unraveling Roe v. Wade.  He writes; " The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument". [p. 156]

The key is seeing the fetus as  a PERSON.  Since antiquity, many teachings exist which suggest that personhood is formed at the moment of fertilization or conception.  Biblically, Genesis 2:7 suggests this;  

Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Basically, we see a simple equation; physical form + breath of life= living person.  The great Philosopher, Aristotle, called the mix of material and immaterial, the "hylomorphic union", as needed for life.

Additionally, the technology of modern bioethics has changed the argument.  As argued by Shannon and Kockler in "An Introduction to Bioethics", we see medical science treating the fetus as a patient with perinatal care, fetaloscopies, and in utero treatments.  By this, and ancient reckonings, the fetus is a patient and therefore a patient.  This stands to logical reason; All patients are alive, persons are alive, therefore therefore patients are alive; patients are alive, the fetus is a patient, therefore THE FETUS IS ALIVE.  It is a simple, straightforward and valid logical argument.

Abortion advocates try to draw a distinction between life and personhood.  This brings up an argument of "emergent" personhood.  This implies that personhood can be lost or gained depending on a person's physicality.  Therefore, it argues that if one is not whole, the personhood is diminished.  One does not logically follow from the other.  Do the disabled lose some of their personhood with loss of function?  Most people, like Eric Legrand, would say NO.  From the beginnig of the zygote, to the blastocyst, to the full fetal implantation we see fertilzation as controlling the womb of the woman and the uterus preparing for th pregnancy.  If there is no life, there can be no direct impact on the immediate environment; there would be nothing for which the body would prepare.

The rallying cry of abortion advocates, is often summarized by the outdated slogan; MY BODY, MY CHOICE.  While this is partially true, it does not approach the subject of life, at any stage.  Life is the province of God, according to Christian principles, life and death is under the Lord's authority.  we are merely stewards of the life entrusted to us.  More specifically, the pregnant woman is entrusted with this life in her womb; she does not own it, she is the steward of this life.  As Christians, we are called to be stewards of three things; Creation, the Gospel message, and our own gifts and talents.  Women have bee given the GIFT of motherhood, through pregnancy,  Therefore, a direct abortion,with no medical justification, ignores this task of stewardship which we were given.

Overall, with the ancient wisdom and modern medical technology we have come full circle.  The argument, circumstance, and science that surrounded Roe v. Wade has changed.  Therefore, it is time to reconsider the sweeping, broad-stroked, and panoramic changes it has produced.  It is time to place life and personhood in the forefront.