Opposition to "R.O.E. Act" Grounded in Science & Common Sense

Why do citizens across the political spectrum oppose S.1209, the "R.O.E. Act"? Dr. Kerry Pound, Vice President of MCFL, illustrates why briefly and clearly in the following response to Rev. Robinson's strange conflation of religion with biology, and misunderstanding of the human development. The text below was published in The Cape Cod Times.


By Kerry Pound, M.D., Vice President, MCFL

I appreciate the Rev. Edmund’s Robinson’s Aug. 16 My View in response to my June 15 op-ed, “Two patients? Not according to the proposed ROE Act.” But I am unclear why he believes I have asserted any religious perspectives, given my arguments arose from science. I did not mention religious teachings in either my op-ed or in my testimony at the Statehouse.

Science recognizes the beginning of life as conception. The journal Nature published a study with the opening statement: “The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”

Perhaps Robinson’s argument was that I have conflated life with personhood. If we agree life starts at conception, what constitutes the claimed profound difference between a zygote and an adult? Only time and development. Clearly, a human conceptus is not going to become a “wart” or a cancerous growth, and certainly ought not to be treated as such.

Our law in Massachusetts already allows for abortion throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy for concerns of mother’s health and life. The NASTY Act passed last summer guarantees that abortion will remain available in the commonwealth even if federal law changes.

Why then is the ROE Act necessary? Plainly, it isn’t.


Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.