Roe vs. Wade, Forty
by Bob Pappas
Keep up with the latest
political information at:
Want to listen to this
has been much commentary about abortion in recent
months perhaps because this year was the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court
Decision in the case of
Roe vs. Wade,
the case that defined a woman's right to an abortion
incident to due process and privacy under the
14th Amendment. The majority decision
was rendered by Justice Blackmun on January 22, 1973. Now, forty years later, it
is notable that most Americans oppose abortion.
that date an estimated 55 million pregnancies
have been terminated resulting in the death of
that number of potential American citizens. Who knows who may have been
born...for good or ill? Perhaps a genius equal or even superior to Einstein, or
on the other hand someone who might have eclipsed the tyrants of history. That
will only become known at the Judgment, the eventuality that is totally ignored
in most instances. Since most abortions arise out of "inadvertent" illicit
pregnancies, abortions are performed to hide the behavior; in Obama's words to
the effect, to avoid "the punishment of an inadvertent pregnancy." And, no doubt
there are some abortions incident to relatively small numbers or pregnancies
that result from rape or incest. Arguments fly in all directions about the
morality of terminating a pregnancy including the latter instances. Meanwhile
abortionists celebrated the
Roe vs. Wade
decision this year with a commercial in which a black male smiling, proclaims:
"our special day baby."
who impregnate a female and thereafter agree to pay for an
abortion to avoid paternity are the most contemptible
of the human species. Of course married men who find themselves having "knocked
up" some honey nearly always offer to pay for an abortion
to avoid being found out by their wives not to mention professional associates.
Eventually such marriages collapse under the weight of deception anyway, unless
you are Hillary and Bill Clinton. Does anyone really care to trade places with
either one of them? If so, I know a good psychiatrist you might want to contact
for a mental health enema.
human adults and too many minors engage in sexual intercourse with a member of
the opposite gender (and no, it's not better
for it to be the same gender), some are married and legitimate while many
are one night stands or living together outside the bonds of God ordained
marriage. All the arguments in the world do not change the fact that sexual
activity is designed and intended to result in a pregnancy. Sexual intercourse
is analogous to pulling a trigger on a loaded weapon...the
weapon will fire and a bullet will strike somewhere. In the case of sexual
intercourse, the bullet is the release of millions of spermatozoa that find
their way to the ovum target, an event in which the former fertilizes the
latter. Cellular reproduction begins and the growing mass of cells has DNA
separate and distinct from either the male or female participants.
A discrete life indisputably begins at that moment.
question is: "At what point does God impart a soul into the mass of cells?" Some
argue "at the moment of conception," but that is doubtful when one considers the
number of natural miscarriages. Here's why: if God imparts a soul at the moment
of conception and since a miscarriage results in death of the fetus, then all
natural miscarriages put Him in squarely in violation of His own law;
"thou shalt not kill."
But God cannot violate His own precepts, so, one must conclude that a fetus that
dies in a natural miscarriage is not yet imparted with a soul. At what point a
soul in imparted is imponderable; no human knows and to suggest otherwise one
assumes the mantle of God. The fact is, a fetus dies in a miscarriage whether
natural or induced. The distinction is that one is of God and the other of
humanity and to my knowledge God has not yet granted authority for humans to
abort despite the arrogance of the Supreme Court in its
Roe vs. Wade
decision and those who celebrate it.
intention is for people to engage sexual intercourse for the purpose of
procreation within the bonds of marriage, despite what Bill Clinton or Hollywood
advocate by their actions. Liberals argue that since "it's" going to happen and
if so, as Obama
suggests, "he would not want one of his
daughters to be punished with an inadvertent pregnancy."
Obama calls himself a Christian and in his so called, "Christian" worldview it
is okay and lawful to withhold life-support from any child that miraculously
managed to survive an abortion. That's Christian? As
previously noted, there will be a Judgment and whereas God will no doubt bestow
abundant mercy and grace that grows out of His love for the penitent,
impenitent political, religious and other hypocrites explanations' will fall on
His Ears of Justice.
a powerful force, just look around; but then consider the fact that despite its
force humans ability to reason and exercise self control is not suspended.
Therefore, the evident solution to an unwanted pregnancy and
abortion would be to not put oneself in temptation's
way in the first place. Today, every worldly force advocates promiscuity as
normal and expected, so most succumb. To succumb however suggests that there
resides in one or both parties some element of conscience that urges restraint.
But restraint flies in the face of everything that Hollywood, most colleges and
universities, and the media advocate. Their liberal mantra since the 1960s is:
"If it feels good, do it" and there is abundant evidence that they are "doing
observer of human behavior one is aware of much handwringing over the abysmal
state of the nation: sexual promiscuity, rape, abortion,
murder, violence, drug and
alcohol abuse that are at epic proportions, and
immorality, that is: lying, cheating, and white collar crime and etc. in the
larger context is rampant. Most problems are traceable to political, social and
religious liberalism without regard to political party although it is evident
that Democrats cloaked in their secular vestments of human rights account for
most of it, claiming that diversity and tolerance are inherently righteous.
Hugh Heffner popularized
the notion that sexual behavior between consenting adults is acceptable, and
whereas it may be acceptable to Heffner and millions of others, that does not
make it right. Furthermore, it is not legal or moral for married people to
commit adultery or for unmarried people to fornicate. Old fashioned? The notion
is certainly not original with me, but logic and reason compel a serious
national re-examination of its merits.
Fidelis and Peace
Follow Bob on Twitter @CheetahPappas
If you wish to send a comment, ask a question or added to mailing list please
If you wish to read PREVIOUS ARTICLES by Bob Pappas,
Get the facts. Watch the latest video clips about the latest issues on