Dec 15, 2021 2 min read

I must disagree with Oren Spiegler’s politically motivated assessment of the U.S. Supreme Court (Dec. 8, “Supreme Court faces conundrum”). He said a possible change to Roe v. Wade “is not forthcoming because society has evolved and become more enlightened. It is because the court is controlled by a conservative majority which is not reflective of the country, a majority which seeks to impose the tyranny of the minority.”

It depends on which polls Spiegler is believing. A new Harvard-Harris poll indicates that although a majority opposes overturning Roe v. Wade, the same majority favors restricting abortion after 15 weeks. That is exactly what Mississippi’s law before the Supreme Court aims to do.

However, even if a majority opposes overturning Roe v. Wade, shouldn’t the Supreme Court follow the science that shows human life begins at conception and do what’s right? Do we go along with the majority if the majority denies the science?

Modern technology can detect a baby’s heartbeat 18 days after conception or about four days after most women miss a period. Brain waves can be detected by six weeks and twi days from conception. The embryo begins to move between five to six weeks, even though a pregnant woman doesn’t feel movement until eight to 10 weeks. An embryo that is touched will squint, move its jaws, grasp with its hands and point its toes by eight weeks and two days. The embryo can begin to hiccup by seven weeks. The diaphragm muscle is completely formed by eight weeks and intermittent breathing motions begin.

Why don’t we just follow the science? In these United States of America why do we protect the eggs of eagles and owls, but support a supposed right to murder an innocent human baby?

Richard Kauffman

Canonsburg