53,000,000 dead babies and counting. How did we get here?
Our journey began with a simple and apparently innocent redefinition of the word “fetus.”
Fetus: A clump of unwanted cells, right? Well, not exactly…
The dictionary defines “fetus” as “The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its development, especially a human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are present.”
The pro-choice (pro-abortion) argument goes as follows:
- A woman has a choice of what to do with her body.
- The “fetus” is a part of the woman’s body just as a tumor or some organ is part of her body.
- Therefore she can choose to do whatever she wants with the fetus.
So let us dissect the argument:
Regarding point 1: The woman does, indeed, have a choice of what to do with her own body. But there are significant limits on what she can do with her own body:
1a. No one – man or woman – can do something that is harmful to another person. (e.g. stab or kill another person)
1b. No one – man or woman – can do something that is harmful to even the property of another person. (e.g. vandalize or destroy property)
Regarding point 2:
A: The word “fetus” comes from the Latin word meaning “offspring”. By definition an offspring is not part of the mother – it is a descendant or progeny of the mother and a totally separate person. The synonym for “fetus” is “baby.” (Substituting this word would make the discussion much more clear.)
B: The definition of “fetus” is as follows:
The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its development, especially a human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are present.
A fetus is not just a clump of cells, as the “pro-choice” propaganda implies it to be; it is a fully formed unborn young person. As such, it is a complete human being separate and distinct from the mother. (All one has to do to verify this fact is to examine a male fetus at any stage of development: The mother is female, the fetus is male. They are two different people!)
Regarding point 3: Since a “fetus” is not a part of a woman’s own body, conditions 1a and 1b apply. Therefore a mother, pregnant with an unborn young, is limited in what she can do with her own body due to conditions 1a and 1b. In particular, she cannot take actions that are harmful to the fetus (condition 1a) – especially actions that result in the killing of that fetus. This restriction is no different from what a mother can do with a 1 month old baby she is nursing, and is quite consistent with criminal law regarding murder of a baby in the womb.
Abortion violates condition 1a because it causes death of the fetus through human hands. Thus one can only conclude that abortion of a fetus is morally and legally wrong and equivalent to murder. From that one can only conclude that abortion after 8 weeks of gestation is morally wrong and equivalent to murder.
In fact, one could argue that abortion at any stage of gestation is murder from the simple fact that an embryo is a human being separate and distinct from the mother (though not necessarily fully formed). This fact is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the DNA of the embryo is different from that of the mother but the same as that of the baby expelled from the womb; DNA is unique to each person and never changes during the life that human being from conception to death. Since the intentional taking of another person’s life is murder, any procedure designed to take the life of the embryo is also murder.
No matter how one approaches this issue, the answer always seems to come out the same: Abortion is murder. Now I’m not a lawyer (thank God!), but I couldn’t help asking myself, “If the argument is so obviously clear to me, then how did Roe v. Wade get it so wrong?”
Roe v. Wade
In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court redefined a “fetus” (unborn baby) to be only a “potential life” devoid of Constitutional rights. The Court specifically declined to address the core issue, which is when life begins and Constitutional rights of personhood apply.
Since the Court redefined a fetus (unborn baby) to be only a “potential life”, a fetus (unborn baby) is not legally alive while in the womb; its “life” begins outside the womb.
So a fetus (unborn baby) is not alive a minute before birth, but magically comes to life when expelled from the mother’s body?
The Court saw the absurdity of this position, and invented the concept of “viability” outside the womb to “define” beginning of life: The fetus (unborn baby) is not deemed “alive” until it can exist outside the womb – a moving and vaguely defined target, especially in light of continuing advances in modern technology. Not being medical experts, the Court simply adopted a trimester formula for legal purposes.
Having disposed of the core issue of personhood for the fetus (unborn baby), the Supreme Court proceeded to focus its attention entirely on the rights of a “real” person, the mother. Specifically, the Court found that a person had a “right to personal privacy” which includes the decision to abort or not; although a right to privacy is only implied but not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. By the Court’s logic, this “right to privacy” easily overrides any potential rights of the fetus (unborn baby) because the fetus (unborn baby) is not even legally “alive.” Hence the Court held that laws criminalizing abortion (the killing of fetuses/babies in the womb) violate the mother’s due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment but do not impact the fetus (unborn baby) – though the latter surely dies in the process.
Although the Court held that such a right is not unqualified, it stated that the “right to privacy” must be considered against “important state interests” in regulation. Such interests are effectively limited to threats to the life of the mother and viability of the fetus (unborn baby). Note that the Court made absolutely no mention of the rights of the fetus (unborn baby) – because it redefined fetus (unborn baby) to have no rights due to the fact that it was not even alive!
One really has to be a lawyer to invent such contorted logic that defies reality!
Subsequent Court Decisions
There have been numerous subsequent court decisions related to abortion, but they all followed the lead and example set by Roe. v. Wade. They simply refined procedural criteria and continued to focus on the mother’s rights and welfare, while virtually ignoring the welfare of the fetus (unborn baby). After all, the status of the fetus (unborn baby) was a settled issue because the Supreme Court’s Roe. v. Wade decision made it clear that a fetus (unborn baby) is only a “potential life” with no Constitutional rights of personhood.
How can anyone bring a successful class action suit against violation of due process on behalf of someone who doesn’t exist? But anyone can bring a successful class action suit on behalf of a “real” pregnant woman whose perceived rights have been violated!
So, here we are
We proudly announce we are “a nation of laws” while our nation is failing because our lawmakers, lawyers, and judges have become ensnared in the letter of the law, having forgotten the spirit of America as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. What good is it to have a nation of unjust laws? What benefit does society reap from unrighteous laws?
Communist Russia was a nation of laws, yet oppressed.
Iran is a nation of laws, but one dare not speak out against the government.
China is a nation of laws, yet the state forces abortion on its populace daily.
Laws guarantee nothing.
Our lawyers and judges are trained to discern small differences of legality, to “split hairs” with great precision. But they are blinded by and shrink from the bright light of truth shining in their faces. They are the Pharisees of today.
Jesus said of the Pharisees, the lawyers of His day:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. (Mat 23:23)
That is exactly what happened in the case of Roe v. Wade and all subsequent decisions related to abortion. Courts handed down many rulings on procedural refinements, while totally ignoring the heart of the issue: Personhood of the unborn.
The question screams for an answer to this day: “When does a fetus (unborn baby) acquire legal Constitutional protection?”
The issue is not one of procedure; the issue is not one of legalism; the issue is not one of “rights”; the issue is one of righteousness! For many years our courts willfully ignored the rights of blacks, just as they are willfully ignoring the rights of the unborn today. It was legal then, but not righteous. It is legal today, but not righteous. How many years, how many deaths will it take for our nation to wake up to the truth?
One cannot legislate righteousness through procedures, for righteousness comes only from the Spirit of God acting in the hearts of men. One cannot legislate righteousness, for such laws will be held “unconstitutionally vague”; righteousness cannot be categorized, cataloged, and defined in procedures. Righteousness comes only through recognizing God’s sovereignty over His creation, through recognizing that life is His precious gift and not man’s creation, through respecting that gift as He wanted us to respect it, through submitting to His perfect will and law.
Regrettably our justices have fallen in love with precedence law and forgotten the underpinnings and source of those laws. They have forgotten righteousness and the true meaning of the words our Founding Fathers so beautifully penned in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
“All men” means “all men” – no matter what race, gender, religious affiliation, born or unborn. It’s pretty clear to me. But then I’m not a lawyer. However I do know this:
Lose the Spirit, and unrighteousness comes. Forget your past, and lose your future.
The Supreme Court and all subsequent courts have attempted to replace God’s laws with man’s laws and procedures. The Supreme Court and all subsequent courts continue to look back only to the most recent precedent case for guidance because they have forgotten our country’s origins.
They have lost The Spirit and forgotten the past. Unrighteousness reigns and we are losing our future.
The net result? 53,000,000 dead babies and counting…
And our justices continue to redefine words as if it doesn’t matter: A tax is not a tax. Marriage is not marriage.
This truly is social insanity at work.
All is not as it looks!