By Luis Zaffirini

Luis Zaffirini

It's becoming more clear to the American public that one of the greatest threats to the supposed "right" to abortion is science. Consider how far modern medicine is removed from the practice of medicine in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided. Unfortunately, pro-abortionists are stuck in the past. Way in the past.

I recently read a pro-abortion blog, arguing against an upcoming speaking engagement with a local pro-life college group.

The writer said, "given that the idea that a zygote is a human being only dates to two hundred years ago with the Catholic Church, it is hard to imagine what they mean by human rights beginning when human life begins." What should we say?

First (aside from the fact I have no idea what the "two hundred years ago" refers to), if we disregard theories which are only a couple hundred years old, we can toss out cell theory which explains that cells are the basic building block of living organisms and even modern genetics whose theory that heredity is passed though chromosomes only gained acceptance within the last hundred years. I am being sarcastic, of course.

For another, not knowing what was scientifically unknowable at the time did not affect a consistent opposition to abortion.

We know (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church) that "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable ..."; and that "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, the human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person--among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life."

If you are looking for a perfect example of the mental gymnastics required of the pro-abortion mind confronted with modern scientific advancement, try 2008 when Nancy Pelosi appeared on "Meet the Press." Tom Brokaw questioned her about being a pro-abortion Catholic.

She defended herself with a quick detour down a rabbit trail--a 5th Century understanding of "ensoulment"--to argue that the Catholic Church did not have a consistent position on when life begins! We couldn't expect Pelosi to know this--or if she did, admit it--but these in-house debates about hypothetically permissible abortions in rare cases at some very early stage in the formative process were "rejected by the Catholic Church, which constantly affirmed and refined its understanding that abortion is an intrinsically evil act that can never be morally justified," according to Susan Wills of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Contrary to Pelosi, the Catholic church's opposition to abortion is not "maybe 50 years" old but 2,000 years old.

It seems people arguing in favor of abortion are arguing from a worldview unfamiliar with modern science or the aid of modern technology. Perhaps that makes it easier to understand why pro-aborts fight so hard against letting women considering abortion view ultrasound of their unborn babies.

After all, they appear to be living in a world without so much as a microscope.

Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha.