An Infamous Day in American
History
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States decided by a seven to two vote that, in Justice Blackmun's words, the term "person" as it is used in the Constitution, "has application only postnatally" (italics mine). The Associated Press story quotes him as saying:
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answers.
So now we have abortion on demand nationwide by Supreme Court decision. After the third month the states may, if they choose , put on limited regulations related to maternal health. For all practical purposes , however , the die has been cast for the unborn.
-84-
Justice Blackmun and the six others who voted with him in what may be the most infamous Supreme Court decision in American history (outranking in infamy even the Dred Scott decision of March 6, 1857, which defined the Negro slave as "property" rather then "person") have either not done their homework, or are so caught up in the irrationality of the times that they cannot see the real issue. Nor can he and the others see, it would appear, the frightening nihilistic implications of their decision.
Yes, there has been a lack of consensus among the various disciplines. But not on the question of when life begins! Even the most avid pro-abortionists agree the life (indeed, human life) begins at conception. The point of disagreement has centered around the questions of when full status of humanity or personhood begins. On this very questions where there has been real difference of opinion, the seven "sovereign" justices have made up their minds (and supposedly, the minds of everyone) that in the Constitution the term "person" "has application only postnatally." So only after the child is born does it receive full status of humanity or personhood. Before that time it is a helpless and voiceless pawn of the whims of the mother who has been influenced by the climate of opinion created by the Court's decision and perhaps has actually come to believe, selfishly, that the rights over her body and privacy are absolute; it is a pawn of the whims of the states they may or may not decide to put some controls on abortion after the first three months, which controls will not amount to much more probably than making sure that the clinical facilities are adequate,
The game of playing god is getting more dangerous every day in this morally bankrupt and ill-fated society. The power elitists have spoken again. Who will be next to have the price tag on his life lowered because he has not attained or retained full status of humanity? How soon will the day come when the Court will tell us that although the term "person" "has application only postnatally," it does not necessarily apply in every case of childbirth because
-85-
some human progeny lack sufficient qualities (sufficient intelligence, ability to produce, sociability, or desirability) that they have decided to use as criteria for their definition or personhood?
And will that be the day when they tell us that is is for the benefit of society as a whole to have the state mercifully kill such human entities?
If it should for a moment be granted that in the Constitution the term "person" "has application only postnatally," then it should become a matter of utmost concern to the wide majority of people in this nation ho do not favor abortion --- because they believe that the value of every human being is absolute --- to encourage their congressman to provide and submit to the states a new amendment to the Constitution stating that the full status of personhood necessary to receive the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment begins at conception.
It took a Civil War and almost ten years to undo Dred Scott decision through the Fourteenth Amendment passed on June 13, 1866. What will it take to undo this latest decision? How many millions of innocent live will have to be slaughtered this time?
Many hearts are weeping today in desperate anticipation of the mass funeral for the aborted children and for those who have and will commit moral suicide in the blind destruction of their own human offspring, and subsequently of their own humaneness.
It may be too late for this nation of peoples. The red-hot sun of a new quality-of-life ethic has dawned long before this day, and it is scorching the spirit the spirit of man, slowly reducing him to a self-obsessed automation of social utility.
The Court has decided, and it seems that the power elitists have prevailed. But what is legal is not necessarily moral. There remain millions of people, born and unborn, who need unselfish care and unconditional love. To such ends all those who have fought abortion must continue to give their lives.
Would you like to read another online book from the
