Somewhere down the line, abortion became a political issue rather than a moral one. Our own Declaration of Independence espouses the idea - indeed, the reality - that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
The founders of this nation, this ideal, determined that the choice between life and death rightly belongs in the realm of the One, the ONLY One, who makes life possible at all. It is an acknowledgement of faith that there is a divine realm that is unquestionably untouchable and must never be violated by man.
Judge John Roberts is soon to come before the US Senate for confirmation hearings about his fitness and qualification to serve as a justice on the US Supreme court, and it seems that all anyone is most concerned about is exactly how he would have ruled on an issue that was decided when he was still a student. Of course Mr. Roberts, like the rest of us, has his own opinion about abortion, but his detractors want to know if his opinion may (*GASP*) be fed by his faith in "our Creator" and his belief in the ideals of the Declaration.
The political nature of abortion seems to have its grounding in the 1973 Roe v Wade decision that declared abortion to be a "woman's right". Based on what little I've read about Mr. Roberts and his opinions about Roe v Wade being "fundamentally flawed", it would seem that the only "rights" that should have been decided - in the context of our Declaration - is the right to "life" of all humans and not just a woman's "right" to decide who lives and who dies. The "fundamentally flawed" argument seems to declare that since it is the woman's body carrying the unborn child, the woman would then have eminent domain and lordship over her body to include life that could conceivably be sustained independently.
A recent editorial in an Arkansas newspaper stated that even in the early days of Roe v Wade, no one could have possibly imagined the "advances" that have produced "partial birth abortion" and new "right to die" legislation. I beg to differ. I distinctly remember priests in those early days proclaiming that a dangerous door to destruction had been opened. Their only doubt was in exactly how far this ground-breaking "legislation" would lead us into a dark abyss. I say "legislation" because even then many were howling about how the US Supreme Court had made up a new law.
Even still, the narrowness with which so many of Mr. Roberts' opponents are demanding to view his rulings and legal experience and even his faith has the potential to deny the Court a justice who might possibly rule on the Constitution based on what is actually contained in the Constitution.
I do not believe for one moment that the US Constitution - as important as it is - can be considered a "living document" unless we are indeed a nation of humanists. This document was borne of man and his ideals to live free. It is not a "holy" document by any stretch, and it certainly contains no provisions for our right to destroy anything - especially life. John Paul II once said that a nation that seeks to destroy its own young is a nation without hope.
NARAL is pulling out all the stops against Judge Roberts' nomination, trying its level best to convince Americans that the right to abortion is fundamental to any and all other rights. How have we digressed to such a point that the well-being of this nation can be linked to a "right" to destroy life?
Comments