Now that the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade has come and gone, it is instructive to understand that the legal thinking behind this miscarriage of justice inflicted on the unborn has its origins in flawed legal logic.
The legal and humanitarian tragedy of Roe v. Wade that has claimed the lives of more than 55 million babies since 1973 is based on immoral legal precedent and secular humanist reasoning. The greater tragedy is that many Americans buy into the Supreme Court’s ruling without realizing that it is an outgrowth of what is called mainstream positivist jurisprudence and which insists that unborn babies have the same constitutional rights as a fish or a turnip.
Much of the legal thinking behind Roe was influenced by Australian (and now Princeton professor) bioethicist Peter Singer, who made the absurd declaration that "the right to life is not a right of members of the species Homo sapiens ... and a right that properly belongs to persons." Singer tried to make the case for selective infanticide and indeed, all the horror inflicted on mankind by dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, slave owners, the apartheid regime in South Africa, the American Indian genocide, Pol Pot in Cambodia or the Rwandan slaughter are based on the idea that we can dehumanize humans when and how we see fit.
This inhuman legerdemain found in Roe is further enhanced by three other elements which only makes the case for legalized infanticide even more "legal" and to some more justified. They include; the "right" by the mother to kill a nonperson (her preborn baby) as a "liberty interest" protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, state laws allowing abortion at any stage of pregnancy and harsher restrictions on abortion protests vs. other freedoms we are guaranteed by our Constitution. These immoral and untenable frameworks also provide for the easy and convenient way to dispose of handicapped children in the womb and is similar to the thinking of Nazis in their eugenic experiments. This should give pause to anyone who considers him or herself "pro-choice" and should also provide one with a starting point to challenge the legal foundation of Roe v. Wade and the process of repealing this despicable legislation.
Our babies are our future, and if a nation starts to destroy its own future, that nation has no future. Legal considerations aside, we have to acknowledge the fact that we are human, that we have souls, and that God watches each and every one of us, and if we are responsible for enacting laws that hurt or kill our children, then we must do everything we can to overturn those laws. To do anything less would be to dishonor those 55 million babies who paid the ultimate price in our American Holocaust.
VICTOR C. CAPELLI