EDITOR:

There are two elements of daily life we take for granted. That we are alive (life) and we live within a society of our making (governed by laws). Instances in which these two elements become intertwined can cause confusion. While science cannot be changed (gravity will always be gravity), our laws and their applications are subject to change as values in society change. We are now faced with such a circumstance in Proposal 3. Life is the condition in which viable DNA is surrounded by and may function in a continuously nurturing environment. This is science and true for anything we consider to be “alive” or have “life”. In humans, a woman is confirmed pregnant when tests turn positive. This shows the fetus is developing in a nurturing environment and its DNA if functioning in preparation for birth.

Abortion is the stoppage of a process in progress, in this case, live fetal development. There are times when the laws of our society permit the “abortion” (stoppage) of life. Obvious examples are war, self defense or the result of a legal process… the death penalty. These are seriously considered solutions to extreme violations of the laws of society. Some elements of society disagree with these decisions and seek to preserve life. We permit them to be heard.

Regarding pregnancy, there are scientifically supported instances in which fetal development may be interrupted. An ectopic or “tubal” pregnancy does not have a continuous environment to support the function of viable DNA activity. Some situations (ex. detached placenta) may have great likelihood in death to both fetus and mother. These are “pathologies” which would require medical intervention to save one life at the expense of the other. Society generally accepts that this choice must be made based on medical (therapeutic) grounds. An objective, medical determination that abortion is the proper choice.

Society, through rigorous deliberation, may order or sanction terminations of life. The circumstances are never taken lightly because the resulting actions are not reversable. Proposal 3 seeks to place the venue for deliberation solely in society and avoids any scientific consideration of or for life. Extinguishing life should not be considered solely on subjective matters and ignore the scientific reality of life. The current laws of our society are strict about taking life, so should they be when it comes to Proposal 3… consideration over convenience.

A section of Prop 3 deals with birth control. Contraception, since it prevents the conditions of life, should not be a consideration. Mechanical or chemical contraceptives prevent the definition of life, only abortion should be eliminated as a means of contraception. Also, “sexual identity” cannot be subjectively altered, it is genetically determined at fertilization. “Gender identity” is a choice of words which may denote a specific lifestyle and should not be subject to codification in law.

Proposal 3 is poorly conceived, unscientific and truly accomplishes nothing for the benefit of society. Its parts should be considered separately.

Michael A. Glass

Nahma