Science proves that the Roe v. Wade case is wrong.Mankind does not start in 20 weeks: Lira Rose


Last summer, two boys celebrated their first birthday. One in Minnesota and the other in Alabama, miles away, but telling the same story.

Both were born in 21 weeks Richard Hutchinson When Curtis Means It was 131 days and 132 days earlier, respectively.

These small but elastic babies weighed only one ounce at birth and fit in the palm of their mother. They both exceeded all medical expectations, Guinness World Records As the most premature baby to survive. Curtis currently holds the title.

Their story is worthy of record, but it is becoming more common as a medical advance. Go back in time A place where a child can survive outside the mother’s womb.Similarly, technological advances are for newborn children. human At the time of conception – not magically 21 weeks – the facts were discussed in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Richard Hutchinson in Minnesota in June 2020.

Richard Hutchinson in Minnesota in June 2020.

Unconstitutional, unscientific, immoral

On Wednesday, the court heard Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. A law under scrutiny passed in Mississippi in 2018 limits abortion after 15 weeks, except in the case of medical needs or severe fetal abnormalities.

The state now allows abortion Up to 20 weeks – Just a week before Richard and Curtis were born. 50 years later and 62 million babies have diedThe Supreme Court admits it long ago. So-called feasibility criteria Founded by the Roe v. Wade case – the state bans abortion before a newborn child can survive outside the womb – is unscientific, unconstitutional, and morally wrong. ..

What did the Roe v. Wade case actually say? : The groundbreaking abortion rights decision explained

Richard Hutchinson in June 2021.

Richard Hutchinson in June 2021.

This case is a hot topic – Texas SB8 Heartbeat Method – May it ultimately question Roe’s feasibility criteria. The decision in favor of Mississippi will allow the state to pass prenatal protection legislation in ways that have not been possible since Law.

Abortion activists claim that a baby’s humanity begins with the ability to survive outside the womb. Still, science and reason teach us that her humanity exists at the moment of fertilization.

My organization, Live actionIs one of the country’s leading non-profit human rights organizations and, along with leading OBGYN and medical professionals, has released cutting-edge animations of baby development in utero. Baby Olivia By striking the heart, brain waves, fingers, and toes, we portray the moment when life begins and beyond to show the humanity of the newborn human being through each stage of development.

A glimpse of this early human life marks the true beginning of fertilization, where Olivia becomes a unique individual with characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, hair and eye color. Decided immediately.. By 9 weeks Olivia can suck the thumb When swallow..

Olivia’s long-term continued growth sets a precedent for Roe’s “feasibility” Any And unscientific.Even in the pro-low source Judge Sandra Day O’Connor admitted Its “viability” is a swaying accidental line. “As medicine can better provide the separate presence of the foetation, the point of viability goes back to conception.”

Lila & # xa0; Rose & # xa0; is the founder and president of Live Action and the author of & # xa0; Fighting for Life.

Lila Rose is the founder and president of Live Action and the author of Fighting for Life.

Dependence does not deny humanity

Not only is it logically inconsistent and unscientific, but it is also immoral to use arbitrary criteria of feasibility to determine the legal status of a child and ultimately its value.

As children, each of us depended on others for our existence, nutrition, and survival. Why does the physical dependence of a newborn child on the mother need to determine if he is protected by law from the deadly violence of abortion?

Why should the court rule that life at 15 weeks is not worth saving, and life at 20 weeks is worth saving?

There is no “potential” for Richard’s humanity at the 21st week that has existed since conception. Curtis’ life was just as precious a few weeks before he was born. He was human a few days before his first breath. And he is now less important than the first moment he spent in his mother’s womb on his first birthday.

Olivia's long-term continued growth is Roe's & # x00201c; feasibility & # x00201d; precedent is arbitrary and unscientific.

Olivia’s long-term continued growth reveals that Rho’s “practicability” precedent is arbitrary and unscientific.

Richard, Curtis, and others like them force abortion advocates to admit the inconvenient truth: between a premature 21-week-old baby and a baby remaining in the mother’s womb. There is no difference.

The degree of dependence of the child does not determine his humanity. If anything, the more vulnerable the child is, the more legal protection they need and deserve.

Therefore, regardless of premature or “premature” condition, a human infant born or in utero is entitled to the same protection under the same law that protects the rest of us.

It’s time to trust science and embrace life.

Lila Rose is the founder and president of Live Action and the author of “Fighting for Life.”

This article was originally published in USA TODAY: Mississippi Supreme Court on Abortion Ban: Roe’s Survival Criteria Fail