A Look at False Reasoning of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113)
The call for humans is to love God and love people, and the antithesis of this is the setting aside of God and the murder of people. America, through abortion, has done the latter. Murder has served as an afront to God and humanity from the beginning of time, and there has always been a cry for justice for the one murdered. We hear protests ringing through our city streets for people once known and loved who were taken away too soon by the act of murder; yet, we’ve placed the unborn child in a non-living category and have taken away their right to cry. But their cry is Not taken away: God hears it.
we’ve placed the unborn child in a non-living category and have taken away their right to cry.
Abortion is said to be a right to privacy that is hidden in the bowels of the U.S. Constitution. However, we must set aside this false appropriation of the Constitution and consider the act of abortion. First recall that Cain murdered Abel in the privacy of the field and demanded to be left alone; and now consider that a woman murders her child in the privacy of her womb and demands to be left alone. The acts are the same; the only difference is that the Roe court presumptuously granted the mother a right to privately murder her baby – but God still calls out, “Cain, where is Abel your brother?”, “Mother, where is your child?”
the Roe court presumptuously granted the mother a right to privately murder her baby – but God still calls out, “Cain, where is Abel your brother?”, “Mother, where is your child?”
Roe purported to find in our laws the right to privately murder children in the womb, while tossing aside the sound reasoning of the American Medical Association, as delivered in 12 Trans. of the Am.Med.Assn. 778 (1859) and in 22 Trans. of the Am.Med.Assn. 268 (1871) – that abortion was the taking of a human life.
The AMA met in the mid-19th century to determine their stance on certain issues surrounding abortion. One of its key observations was that there existed “a widespread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime – a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the fetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.” The AMA further commented, “We had to deal with human life. In a matter of less importance, we could entertain no compromise. An honest judge on the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no less.” The AMA thus concluded that it should “be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion or premature labor without the concurrent opinion of at least one respectable consulting physician, and then always with a view to the safety of the child – if that be possible” (my emphasis). The reader should take note that the Roe court quoted these very words in their opinion! They had the path already paved by the American Medical Association, and yet they chose instead to conjure-up a right out of the Constitution that didn’t exist. We have refused to acknowledge their crying, and so tend not to cry ourselves.
It seems elementary to the understanding of any human informed of its reproductive process that a man and woman together create another human being – indeed, scientists are fascinated with the explosive life that occurs in the womb[1]. Emile M. Scarpelli notes that “any sort of jargon (such as ‘clump’) as mitigating factors against the humanity of an individual life, is an abrogation of biology itself, a denial of its fundamental truth.” Though it be fundamental, Roe persists because men and women have chosen to behave selfishly – and they’ve created such an excuse so as to prevent the mother from growing attached to that little one inside of her.
Additional excuses such as rape, incest, socioeconomic status, mental health, and other mitigating factors should not be considered as a cause to induce an abortion or premature birth. How men and women have hardened their hearts to the point where they burn their child to death with saline or dismember their child with steel is beyond comprehension. But what about the physical health of the mother (that is, her very life)? Though these scenarios are said to be so infrequent that it they are near zero, the American Medical Association’s position in 1871, remains the fundamental path for us today – the physician should attempt to save both mother and child.
That it should “be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion or premature labor without the concurrent opinion of at least one respectable consulting physician, and then always with a view to the safety of the child – if that be possible.”
American Medical Association
I am not asleep to the fact that saving these growing children in a mother’s womb remains a medical impossibility in early stages of development – nevertheless, if the fundamental maxim of loving God and loving people is to persist, a posture should be taken by the mother and the physician to attempt to save the child, even if inducing a premature birth becomes necessary. This is the distinguishing mark the court should have recognized in Roe – both lives should have been recognized! Doctors who attempt to separate cojoined twins understand the “impossibilities” such procedures impose, but they also understand that both humans will die if they do nothing. In the context of inducing an abortion to save the life of the mother, let the physician endeavor to save both the mother and the child and let the law support this act. Such a law will prevent the wanton murder of children, protect the mother in such rare cases, and protect the attending physician if his attempts at saving both lives were bona fide; and, I dare say, that more medical benefits will be uncovered in the attempts to save life than in the cruel recycling of an aborted child’s remains.
Perspective:
James M. Spillers
The Roe court granted physicians a license to kill, and many people in this Nation have not Wept Over This[2]. The Constitution has left to the hands of the People the law – and it has always been in the hands of the People to remove the disgrace of Roe and instead support the mother and the child.
And it is far past time to act.
[2] Ezekiel 9; spiritual allegory.
[1] See, too, E.M. Scarpelli’s Personhood: a biological phenomenon; J Perinat Med
. 2001; 29(5):417-26. doi: 10.1515/JPM.2001.058. And, Emile M. Scarpelli’s The earliest cells: who are they?; J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002 Oct;12(4):219-21. doi: 10.1080/jmf.12.4.219.221.
USA Perspectives 