Posted by
Bull 67 on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:04:26 AM
In 2007, a passionate debate raged across the scientific community which culminated with the International Astronomical Union (IAU) downgraded Pluto from the status of planet to mere planetoid.
The decision rocked the world. According to CNN, the Illinois Senate declared Pluto be restored to “full planetary status.” New Mexico’s House of Representatives designated March 13th, 2009 as “Pluto Day.” Pluto fans can order “Plutophile” bumper stickers, join a Pluto fan club, or sign an online petition. The media still devotes extensive coverage to this issue. In 2008, the "The Great Planet Debate: Science as Process" conference convened at Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). According to Livescience.com:
The entrance to the debate over Pluto's planet status said it all: With techno music blaring in the background, the two debaters and a moderator walked into the auditorium, cameras flashing and the audience clapping.
Hal Weaver of JHU's Applied Physics Laboratory, called the spectacle "a real scientific conference to lay out all the issues and discuss them."
What’s all the fuss about? Pluto is an ice covered rock about 3 billion miles away. It has yet to be reached by a space probe and will probably never be visited by humans. It has zero impact on the lives of most Americans other than what our children memorize in school.
Why did the IAU change its status? A spokesman for the IAU said, “We now know that what we call the different objects has to necessarily change with time." Planetary science advanced in the 79 years since its discovery. Now, advanced instruments like the Hubble telescope, space probes, radio and x-ray telescopes, and host of other tools have enabled breathtaking discoveries. As our body of knowledge expands, old ideas are challenged and definitions change. In science, no assumptions are sacred.
If science deems it important to expend time and money determining the legal status of a hunk of a frozen rock, why won’t we spend at least the same level of effort asking when human life begins?
In Roe v Wade and several other cases, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of abortion and dismissed the question if a fetus was a legally human, stating:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
In the same ruling the Supreme Court place infant viablity at about 27 weeks.
This was1973, when ultrasound technology was just in its infancy. 3D ultrsound and prenatal genetics wasn’t even science fiction. The mirablce of in-uterous fetal surgery didn’t become successful till the 1980s.
Now, in 2009, over 50% of all American premature infants born at 24 weeks survive. In Sweden that number is 70%. Tony Perkins, with the Family Research Council, interviewed for an ABC story, said. “As we see, with the advancement of medical technology, we have children surviving outside the womb younger and younger.” Medically, we’ve come a long way since the Blackman Court.
To the most ardent support of abortion, I ask this logical and fair question: If we can reconsider the fate of a worthless rock with much honest vigor, why not our own species? 36 years after Roe v. Wade, maybe the “respective discipline of medicine” has the tools and track record to try.