To the editors:



Re: “Abortion: A Product of Its Times,” op-ed, Sep. 13.

Evolutionary theory suggests that human beings are inclined to do many things that are morally problematic. Many evolutionary biologists believe that the evolution of men incline them toward the reproductive strategy of impregnating numerous women and committing only minimally (or not at all) to each of them. Yet it would be absurd to conclude from this fact that men are morally justified in exploiting and abandoning women! Similarly, Darwinism might help us to understand why some women seek out abortions, but it does not automatically follow that those abortion are good moral choices.

Morality can be informed by science, but it cannot be reduced to science. Pro-lifers point to the authority of science to show that the entire genetic basis of a new human life is present from the moment of conception. Thoughtful commentators on both sides of the issue raise other scientific facts of embryological development to affirm or deny the humanity of the unborn child. These scientific insights shed important light on the moral question, but they do not completely determine it. We must still ask the same moral questions that people have been asking for decades: Is the unborn child a “human life”? If so, is it ever legitimate to destroy this young life? What moral goods (or evils) does abortion bring for women? These questions, which are only minimally addressed in N. Kathy Lin’s article, are the heart of the abortion debate, and it is there that we must return if we want to discover the truth about this critical issue.



JUSTIN S. MURRAY ’07

September 14, 2006



The writer is the head of “Gospel of Life,” a group affiliated with the Harvard Catholic Student Association.