9.17.2005

Roe v Wade? No, Man's Opinion v God's Law!

I'm posting one of my assigned essays for my Legal Assistant Course through OakBrook. It's quite dense, but if you are interested in Roe v Wade or want to fall asleep, this article is for you!


Roe versus Wade can be considered to be the height of our government’s rebellion against God. To be sure, there have been more heinous judgments since then, but in this case the ever-rising conflict of man’s opinion against God’s law can be most clearly seen. It is to our benefit to examine this case to better understand the problems that riddle our culture today. The argument by the Court centers on the concept of “personal liberty” as possessed by the mother. This concept is based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that no state law can “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It is on this one word, “liberty,” that the Court’s argument rests.

Another important reference to “liberty” exists in the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. . . .” Here, the Founders pointed out that our rights proceed from and are dependent on our Creator; that we as human beings are subject to a higher power than the government. This reflects a God-centered basis for authority, where each jurisdiction is appointed by God to secure the rights that were divinely given in the first place.

Sadly, however, our Supreme Court has forsaken this Biblically-based system for one formed by man. Our Founders felt that it was necessary to anchor their legal philosophy in our inherent, God-given, unalienable rights; an “idealistic” philosophy of law, wherein all judgments are based on an objective, “ideal” standard. Instead of following the Founder’s lead, today’s Courts have begun to look at legal procedure from a “realistic” mindset, weighing out competing “interests” compared to changing societal norms.

In Roe versus Wade, the court claimed that the right of “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment was broad enough to cover personal privacy and physical freedom. This was then extrapolated to include a woman’s “right” to “terminate” her pregnancy. However, their reasoning fails miserably.

John Jay, the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, stated that we are a Christian nation. As Christians, we are accountable to God alone for our personal actions. If, as the court seemed to posit, pregnancy is solely the “mother’s” ordeal, than the decision to have an abortion would be outside of the civil government’s authority. Unfortunately for the Supreme Court, they fail to point this out in their case. Instead, they gesture violently towards the Fourteenth Amendment, calling the Texas law forbidding abortion an “infringement of the woman’s right of privacy”.

Moreover, the bench covered up the rights of the unborn in a cloak of deception. By feigning concentration on the woman’s “right of privacy”, and weighing this against the “state’s interests”, they successfully swept the unalienable God-given right of life beneath the carpet of a “realistic” legal philosophy.

Recall that the Declaration spoke of the God-given right to life as being inherent and unalienable. In other words, the personal rights of every human being: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, cannot be weighed out or exchanged. They are irrevocable and cannot be compromised. Such rights are in sharp contrast to the Court’s assumed “right to privacy”, which they admit is “not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.”

If the supposed “right” of a woman to “terminate her pregnancy” does indeed exist, it is but a “qualified” right, this is still somewhat duplicitous. An inherent right is by nature unqualified. The philosophical concept of a right is based on an unchanging principle; if a right can be weighed out subjectively it is nothing more than a temporary privilege. A qualified right is a contradiction of terms. However, the Court has decreed that this new concept of a “qualified right” exists in the Constitution. Roe versus Wade was not a comparison of a state’s regulatory interests with privacy rights. This case was a battle between a supposed, Constitutional, “qualified” right and a God-given, unqualifiable right affirmed in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence!

When men reject the clear “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, they inevitably end by pitting their own, subjective truth against the Law of God.

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for . . . mortal man. . . .” (Romans 1:21-23)

God help our nation!

In Him, D3

5 comments:

Karen Kovaka said...

I liked your essay a lot. Good thoughts. I do have a clarification question, though. Do you think there is no such thing as a qualified right? Or were you just pointing out that inalienable rights are of greater importance than qualified rights?

David S. MacMillan III said...

There is no such thing as a qualified right in the context that the judges were using it.

There is such a thing as a "conditional" right (citizens have the right to vote AS LONG AS they don't commit a felony) and probably a few others similar to that.

However, what the Court in Roe versus Wade meant by "not unqualified" was that this right was not absolute. It could be weighed against other interests in determining whether or not it should be upheld. A "right" is a fundamental concept that is absolute. Like Boolean, it is either "true" or "false", "existent" or "nonexistent". A right cannot be weighed out against another right to see which right is right.

Non-universal rights can exist, and it can be taken away (like the right to vote), but it can't be assigned a numerical value and compared to another right. It's an all or nothing situation.

(That's just what's comin to me. . . .)

Karen Kovaka said...

That makes sense. I was wondering where the right to vote fit into the scheme of things. That helped - thanks.

Brett Harris said...

David, I'm interested to hear more about your Legal Assistant Course.

Meanwhile, are your familiar with the argument that. decision aside, Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion simply because the jurisdiction of the court only extends to the case before them?

In your opinion, what jurisdiction was the Supreme Court intended to have and how does court precedent (leading to court "law") veer away from that original intent?

David S. MacMillan III said...

Hey Brett!

I've been meaning to email you to say thanks for the link from your site. Also to point out that your sidebar is messed up . . . you can fix that by slightly the image of you and your brother at the top or simply changing the size of the sidebar in the CSS style sheeting.

I'm interested to hear more about your Legal Assistant Course.

It absolutely rocks. It is a big job (I'm studying 5.5 hours a day, 4 days a week, 11 weeks per quarter, four quarters in the year) but it will really pay off.

After I take the course, I am eligible to sit for a Paralegal Certification exam that will give me a national certification to do everything a lawyer can do except argue cases in court and give legal advice. Besides, it is given by the number 2 law school in the nation! You can click on this link to go to the college website.

Meanwhile, are your familiar with the argument that. decision aside, Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion simply because the jurisdiction of the court only extends to the case before them

No I am not, but it seems like a very good one. I'll have to look into it.

The judgement (and I'm quoting from the Paralegal Syllabus) said:

"Article 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here."

In your opinion, what jurisdiction was the Supreme Court intended to have and how does court precedent (leading to court "law") veer away from that original intent?

The Supreme Court originally only had the authority to test federal laws against the Constitution. This has always remained the same, even though the Court hasn't followed it.

The Fourteenth Amendment gave Congress the ability to override state laws that violated the right to life, liberty, and property. No where did this give the Court any extra rights.

It's interesting that law students at Harvard are not required to even read the Constitution, much less memorize it, during their first year of school!

In Him,

David S. MacMillan III