Roe v. Wade: deformation of a great nation

In 1972 the American Civil Liberties Union established its National Litigation Program to foster the “rights” of prisoners. Indeed, we should all be concerned about the trend of overcrowded prisons and jails with deteriorating structures and prisoner violence, as well as inadequate medical care and insufficient rehabilitation programs for inmates.

There are organizations that fight for the “rights” of minorities. These groups insist that minorities have freedom from any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, color, national or ethnic origin, language, or any other status and that minorities be allowed to maintain and enjoy their culture, religion, and language free from discrimination.

Then, of course, the Human Rights Campaign is an organization that fights for the “rights” of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans. They contend that while civil unions are a step in the right direction they do not afford equal rights, because they insist that there are 1,049 federal rights that go only with marriage.

There are also a number of organizations that fight for the “rights” of animals. These animal rights activists reject the notion that animals are our resources, are here for us – to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or used for medical experimentation, or exploited for sport or money.

The concept of animal rights extends to the extreme concern expressed over those animals on the endangered species list. For example, there is a concerted effort underway in the south of Britain to save the tiny hazel dormouse (muscardinus avellanarius) that weighs about 20 grams and measures less than three inches. Great conservation efforts have been launched and a considerable amount of money has been spent to preserve the population of dormice in England and Wales.

Most people seem to be greatly concerned about the preservation of life, and there seems to be almost an inordinate emphasis on the “rights” of both humans and animals.

Personally, I am becoming increasingly pleased that there are those who are interested in the “rights” of seniors. In fact, in 1974 the Department of Health and Human Services issued a proclamation of Senior Citizens Rights declaring that older people have the right to “a standard of living that is well over the minimum needed for bare existence, one that enables them to participate in social and cultural life.”

Recently, we have also heard a quite a lot about women’s “rights.” When President George W. Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act on Nov. 5, 2003, there were those who decried his action as placing an undue burden on women. On June 1, 2004, Federal District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of California struck down the law, declaring that it was a violation of women’s rights.

But what about the rights of the unborn? Are we more interested in the rights of everyone else than those who cannot speak for themselves? Are we more interested in the hazel dormouse, the spotted owl, and the leatherback turtle than the unborn children of our society?

In January of 1973 the Supreme Court handed down its Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions legalizing abortion in all 50 states during all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason, medical, social, or otherwise. Today the vast majority of all abortions are performed for social, not medical reasons – because a woman doesn’t feel ready for a baby at the time, because her partner wants her to have an abortion, etc.

The Bible suggests that God regards us as “the apple of His eye” (Psalm 17:8). In other words, we (the born and the unborn) are precious to Him.

Max Lucado in his book, The Applause of Heaven, tells about a sweater that hangs in his closet. He says he seldom wears it – it’s too small, the sleeves are too short, the shoulders too tight. Some of the buttons are missing. The thread is frazzled. Logically, he says, he should throw out that sweater since he has no use for it and will never wear it again. It simply takes up space in his closet.

Lucado reports that logic tells him to discard it, but love won’t let him. Why not? Because it was not made in an assembly line as the product of some nameless employee earning a living. Rather, it was the creation of a devoted mother expressing her love – his mother. That sweater is unique, one of a kind, irreplaceable. Each strand was chosen with care, each thread selected with affection.

And even though that sweater has lost all of its use, it has lost none of its value. It is valuable not because of its function, but because of its Maker. So is each life. Therefore, let the unborn have their rights and essentially the right to life.