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