South Dakota "Abortion Bill" Trades Off One Lethal Bill For Another

Dianne Irving Comments
Reproduced with Permission

Article: South Dakota Governor Seeks Technical Corrections in Abortion Ban Bill

By Joe Kafka
Associated Press Writer

"'If there's a chance that we can impact the ruling of Roe vs. Wade, we should try,' he said."

Comments by Dr. Dianne Irving, Ph.D.

In the article "South Dakota Governor Seeks Technical Corrections in Abortion Ban Bill", Gov. Rounds of South Dakota wants to support a bill that would ban "most" abortions in South Dakota - a measure that could lead to a Supreme Court challenge to Roe v. Wade - "but wants some technical corrections in it first." There is nothing wrong with attempting to prevent "some" abortions, as long as the attempt itself is morally legitimate and wouldn't cause further deaths of innocent human beings. But the scientific╩"technical corrections" really needed in this Bill,╩which continue to be ignored, are not just the "legal" ones╩the Governor╩comments on. Nor should "some" innocent human lives be legally╩traded off for other innocent human lives by means of╩using morally illicit bills to "limit the evil" of existing bills. This is simply to substitute one╩lethal bill for another.

The South Dakota "Abortion╩Bill" erroneously scientifically defines "a human being" as beginning ONLY╩"at fertilization" -- despite claims to the contrary. This would allow not just "a few" abortions -- regardless of whether Roe stands or falls. If this Bill were to pass, it would turn this false science into LAW -- and be applied as legal precedent (stari decisis) to all future related cases involving human lives╩before the courts. It would essentially constitute╩a new╩"Roe" for all human lives reproduced asexually -- both in vivo and in vitro. All this could easily be averted, as I have suggested several times,╩simply by defining "a human being" scientifically correctly as "beginning to exist immediately by means of either sexual or asexual human reproduction."

The "evil" of an existing Bill such as Roe cannot be legitimately "limited" simply by passing another Bill that is just as morally illicit. Because of the scientific "technical errors" still latent in this Bill, it will ensure the death and destruction of significant numbers of innocent human beings -- regardless of whether or not Roe stands or falls:

(1) Legally, because╩a bill only applies to those items╩specifically defined in that bill, those items not specifically defined by a bill are thereby╩not prohibited. This "Abortion╩Bill" erroneously defines "a human being" as beginning ONLY╩"at fertilization". Thus╩it will ONLY apply to those human beings reproduced sexually. It will not apply to any human lives that╩are asexually reproduced (e.g., in normal in vivo monozygotic twins, triplets, etc., as well as in vitro cloned human beings).╩Thus these naturally occurring in vivo╩human╩twins and triplets (etc.)╩could still be aborted under this Bill. All in vitro asexually reproduced human embryos could still be killed both before and after they are implanted in the womb -- a convenient legal pass for researchers and pharmaceutical companies engaging in human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research.

(2) Nor is the term "fertilization" really sufficient, because fertilization is a process with many steps. If one claims that the END PRODUCT of fertilization -- the zygote stage -- is the beginning of human life by fertilization, then that also leaves out all human beings reproduced asexually before the zygote stage╩by means of many different cloning techniques [e.g., SCNT, GLCNT, pronuclei transfer, twinning (blastomere separation and blastocyst splitting), artificially produced sperm, oocytes, embryos as in the Australian bill, etc.] For these human lives, Roe would essentially╩still stand but with a different name, and all these human lives could be╩legally╩killed and aborted.

(3) It is simply not up to ANY lawyer, court or legislature -- or "prolifer" --╩to "determine" when human life begins. That is a SCIENTIFIC question, not a legal question. Lawyers, courts, legislatures and "prolifers"╩don't have the necessary ACADEMIC expertise to make such a scientific╩judgment. It is up to the experts in human embryology -- REAL human embryologists who are academically credentialed and have the proper Ph.D. degrees IN HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY.