ucmpage.gif (9365 bytes)


N.O.W., Roe v. Wade and Laci Peterson (Part I)

by Col. Bob Pappas, USMC, Ret.

The National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) has remained silent on the issue of "fetal murder" until the Laci and Connor Peterson cases, which will soon be prosecuted under California law as double murder. Although N.O.W. has attempted to distance itself from the pronouncement by one of its affiliates that opposes the charge of murder in the case of Laci's unborn child, in virtually all instances of abortion N.O.W. remains fully committed to Roe v. Wade, aggressively advancing the notion that abortion is the exclusive right of the mother. Typically they have cloaked abortion in the euphemisms, "choice," and "women's rights," spinning reality and politicizing the issue.

There are a number of fundamental problems with "choice."

First, underlying "choice" is the premise that a fetus is neither human nor alive, both of which contradict objective reality.

Second, "choice" confers absolute power to a pregnant female over a life within her, supported by her, but which in every case has totally separate identity from her. In short a fetus is "not her body."

Third, "choice" deminishes the value placed on human life that has long been a basic premise of Western civilization. "Choice," reduces the inherent value of life to nothing and in the process denigrates the Declaration of Independence and undermines the same Constitution upon which "choice," through Roe v. Wade, relies.

Fourth, "choice" effectively destroys women's historic (with notable exceptions) role as society's guardians of sexual morality, logically turning them into objects of sensual pleasure, a fact borne out both by divorce rates and entertainment industry profits. Concomitantly, female "choicers" undermine, if not destroy societal respect for themselves at the moment that they are endeavoring to enhance their respect and political power.

Fifth, "choice" has the practical effect of reducing humanity to the level of animals, a prospect that may bode well for atheists, but denies the beliefs and rights of the majority in the United States.

When an unborn child is killed at any stage of development, under N.O.W.'s operative premise, the mother or parents should have no recourse. Succinctly put, N.O.W.'s position inherently is, "Sorry, but that's too bad." On the other hand, assuming that N.O.W. supports California law that "killing a fetus is murder," N.O.W. is confronted with a logical dichotomy where the operative issue is not the killing but the underlying motivation.

In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court "danced on the head" of the proverbial pin when it crafted its controversial decision, albeit after weighing available information, legal precedent, philosophy, religion and science. But, it sidestepped the central issue, the issue of when life begins. The Court declared:

"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 answer."

Whether or not the Court and the proponents of abortion like it, the Court's admission of its ignorance is central to the debate and fatally undermines its controversial decision. It is evident that the Court abrogated its responsibility when it chose to embrace "political correctness" of the era over bedrock Constitutionality. The Court based its decision on the right of privacy contained in the Fourth Article of Amendment, which states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

By combining the right of privacy with its acknowledged ignorance of the "ultimate" issue of "when does life begin," it sentenced millions to a death based on legal fiction rather than objective reality. In its eagerness to pander, it has unwittingly or otherwise established the additional notion that "private murder" including euthanasia and suicide, may well be Constitutional while violating the right of Habeas Corpus as well as riding roughshod over the Tenth Article of Amendment. To be continued.

Semper Fidelis

What do you think about this article?
Write a letter to the editor at: http://www.bulletinboards.com/view.cfm?comcode=gulf1msw
Please do not reply to this E-mail.
Comments should be sent to <cheetah@gulf1.com>

Copyright May 5th, 2003, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed.


<Back to News