Various viewpoints have noted the lack of understanding at Georgetown of perspectives some consider to be outside of the mainstream.
Perhaps because some undeniably see the preponderance of left-leaning thought at major universities as a sign that these beliefs are factually and logically correct, a negative undercurrent of elitism now pervades most discourse emanating from our institutions of higher learning. Perhaps no view on any issue is so derided as being pro-life.
I have always been so, yet I dare not speak of this in public. To do so, even if one has a rational, non-religious basis for such beliefs, lends to one being dismissed as an ideologue. Since according to standing judicial precedents, abortion is settled law, most would consider pro-lifers as those who wish to turn back the clock, reintroducing a tyranny of overpopulation and borderline misogyny. While I do believe abortion is fundamentally wrong in a moral sense, one only need look to history to see that it can and does provide a social good in the form of population control.
I represent a rare breed of conservatives: one which undeniably subscribes to the basis of modern science that accepts evolution but is at the same time anti-abortion. If one looks at a zygote, a newly conceived human being, the only difference between that entity and a child of three is simply age. Both have the same number of chromosomes, the same DNA, the same destiny to become a human being. In both cases, the only thing stopping this entity (whether embryonic or pediatric) from becoming an adult is an outside influence killing it. This is why abortion, like it or not, is undeniably a murderous act. By having an abortion, you are ending the life of a human being, genetically indistinguishable from any one of us.
But what about a woman’s right to choose? Don’t women have a say in what they can or cannot do with their own body? While philosophically these questions may have some theoretical answers, philosophy is not much of a science when compared with biology. While hoards may argue over the meaning of this or that, biology already has provided the answers to the questions above outside the filter of our own crippling self-awareness. When one objectively examines who and what we are as human beings, one finds that we are simply sophisticated chimpanzees who dress ourselves in suits, write symphonies and try to find any excuse possible to deny that we are, undeniably, animals.
Concerning evolution, one must consider why we even have genders. Why is there such a male and female duality? As much as it pains me to say this, the only reason such a distinction exists is for procreation: Having such a divide is the only way our species, and related ones, have been able to survive. Seen through this light, it is the evolutionary responsibility, like it or not, of women to bear children. The right to choose is based in a misinterpretation of what all human beings are, not in any scientific analysis relying on empirical data.
What I am trying to point out is that while we may dismiss those whose only common bond is believing something you do not, the other side of an issue may provide analysis you may have never considered, even if you still, after hearing it, do not concur on multiple levels.
Disagreement is what makes human discourse so enlightening and beneficial. Science, however, with the mapping of the human genome and the advent of personalized medicine, is beginning to accumulate overwhelming evidence for one bit of bad news we have been avoiding for millennia: The only thing separating homo sapiens from moths, doves or dung beetles is fortuitous breeding.
Jeffrey Planchard is a senior in the College and an opinion editor at THE HOYA. CORRECTION:The viewpoint “Abortion Debate a Scientific Matter” (THE HOYA, Oct. 3, 2006, A3) incorrectly states that Jeffrey Planchard is a senior in the College. Planchard is a senior in the School of Foreign Service.
