Not many Supreme Court case names become common parlance. Most of the memorable ones seem to come in criminal law (often constitutional cases of criminal procedure, many interpreting the Fourth Amendment’s protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures”). Their names alone (even just the first party) become shorthand for their holdings. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (which just rolls off the tongue–I imagine some Supreme Court clerks just shaking their heads and deciding they have to get the justices to take this case, whatever it is about) held that the state must demonstrate voluntariness of consent and that consent is determined by the totality of the circumstances. Miranda v. Arizona formulated the infamous Miranda warnings and Terry v. Ohio permits investigative or “Terry” stop-and-frisks. Kyllo v. United States held that the government’s use a device that is not in general public use (in that case, a thermal imaging device) constitutes a search and requires a warrant.

And then there is Roe v. Wade. Perhaps more than any decision, this one has wrought untold grief upon both the individuals harmed by the abortion procedures (mothers, fathers, and children) and upon our entire form of government. Today, thousands will be marching in Washington D.C. not to the legislature, where changes in law ought to be made, but to the Supreme Court, where the “least dangerous branch” (Federalist Paper #78 Alexander Hamilton) of government does its work. I wish that both sides of this debate could at least agree (although this is not the case) that the whole issue should have been left to the legislatures of the several states, and not constitutionalized. This would have avoided the confirmation process for judges becoming ridiculously politicized and perhaps would have precluded some of the convolutions in constitutional interpretation. I leave more of that legal analysis to others for the moment.

I went through a large portion of my life not thinking much about abortion. Without critical thinking or decent catechesis, I probably landed somewhere in the camp of personally opposed, but thought it should be legal. I had vague notions of free choice and not wanting the world to become over-populated. Then I found myself in a bastion of conservativism, in a place where only one side of the debate (life!) reigned, and the other side was dismissed as irrational. I do have to admit the pro-choice crowd is not irrational, they are just wrong. There is a critical difference. For piping up with this thought, many suspected I was pro-choice (I never really said, and at the time I was not so sure what I was, at least that’s how I remember it). I did have personal growth to do on this issue, and on much of my faith, but the glaring lack of dialogue and disdain from some in that environment did not help my journey.

Anyway, I still believe that those supporting choice are not irrational, but make a fundamental mistake about when human life begins or ensoulment occurs. I assume that abortion supporters stop short of advocating infanticide. I also assume that they do not believe that the status of the (what to call it? every term is loaded!) fetus depends on the intent of the mother to bear or abort. (Really, that’s a lousy argument.) Thus, at some point something actually happens in reality, and everyone (except Peter Singer) recognizes a human person that should not be killed. When is that critical moment? Those supporting abortion rights consider the fetus, at least at early stages, to be just a blob of tissues. Removing a blob of tissues is not morally problematic. Thus, why not abort? I, however, will not support the proposition that the blob of tissues is not a living human being or that it lacks a soul for several reasons. (Caveat: this is a blog post, not a moral treatise, so this is the gist of argumentation, not its most eloquent form. For fuller defenses see here (be sure to click on the titles for the non-summary version of arguments). See also here.) Primarily, when considering critical and unknowable questions such as the beginning of human life or ensoulment, it is most prudent to err on the side of caution. Caution dictates that conception is the moment at which all the genes come together to create a unique person, distinct from the mother or father, not just an Aristotelian potential. Science also continues to reveal more and more about fetal development that suggests an early beginning of life. Ending another person’s life is morally problematic, unlike removing a blob of tissue.

More personally, I have now experienced pregnancy and childbirth. Having held Little One in this world, and being able to look back at the ultrasound images and to recognize Little One, and looking back on the experience of pregnancy, I am convinced that a separate person and soul was within me for those many months. By eight weeks I had heard that individual’s heartbeat, not just the functioning of some tissue. The personhood of that being was not dependant upon my intent to bear the child. The personhood existed, and I am convinced this existence began with conception. (Note to argumentative lurkers out there, this is a bald assertion, not an argument.) My conviction gained strength after giving birth, I thus imagine it would be much easier for a young girl to choose abortion than for a mother who already has a child. I do not know what mental gymnastics some women must do who bear a child, and then take that child to have an abortion of her own, thinking it is in the daughter’s best interests. What about the interests of the grandchild? I know so many couples anxious to adopt, and who have adopted. Those children are wanted!

My husband and I (but not Little One!) will be fasting today for all the pregnant women out there who, for all sorts of reasons, feel the need to choose an abortion. May they find comfort and one of the many places that can help and support them. To be clear, those women deserve such love! There is no room for anger at them if they make a desperate choice. The choice to abort is wrong, but we must find help for those women to enable them to make the right choice.