Friday, December 15, 2006
ROE VS. WADE, A NATION CHANGES COURSE
On January 22, 1973, by a 7-2 vote the Supreme Court handed down the infamous Roe vs. Wade decision along with that for the companion case, Doe vs. Bolton. In terms of human life, these decisions have been more costly than all of man's wars combined. Even the Nazi holocaust provided no numerical comparison to the destruction of humanity directly resulting from these capricious and ill-conceived decisions.
The most devastating legal aspect of the Roe vs. Wade decision was its denial of personhood to the unborn. Ignoring both legal precedent and medical evidence to the contrary, the court relegated the baby to a legal status amounting to zero and struck down legislation in every state prohibiting abortion at any stage of pregnancy. When any individuals or groups are stripped of legal personhood, neither their God-given right to life, alluded to by the Declaration of Independence, nor their basic rights, guaranteed to all by the U.S. Constitution, can be protected. In the case of the unborn, this stripping of rights came through the court's invention of the nonsensical term "potential life" to describe the baby in utero. Without legal or medical definition, and without bothering to explain this phrase himself, Justice Harry Blackman simply evaded the fundamental question of when human life begins.
Since the discovery of the human ovum in the 1820's, medical science has uniformly agreed that the union of a sperm and ovum begins the life of a genetically unique individual, and that life proceeds on a continuum through birth until interrupted by death. This fact is reflected in the American Medical Association's strong opposition to abortion through the 1960's. By 1971, however, the A.M.A. had completely reversed its position, endorsing abortion when it "serves the best interest of the patient." The incentive for this reversal came not from fresh scientific evidence, but rather from internal and external pressure. Internal pressure was provided by pro-abortion physicians with an eye for expedience and profit. External pressure to accommodate was provided by the radical feminist movement and the A.C.L.U., both armed with the dictum the court chose to dismiss entirely the question of when life begins by pleading ignorance. This was, of course, the court's only option, admitting life begins at conception would mandate protection, and denying it would contradict over a century of medical and biological findings. Although the court opted not to face the question of when life begins, it cannot forever postpone reckoning with the truth.
[From 'A Resource Manual']