For centuries, an overwhelming majority of reputable scholars have recognized various universal standards of right and wrong. As these measures arise from human conscience, they are not limited to those who pursue scholarly studies, but prevail amongst the entire human population, as well.
There has never in human history been a successful challenge to these universal standards pertaining to human behavior toward other humans. For example, the universally accepted norm has always been to not kill or harm another human being, except in self-defense and actions taken during times of warfare. That is, until the 1973 Supreme Court of the United States of America ruling known as “Roe v. Wade”.
Prior to Roe v. Wade, which ruled that a woman had a privacy right to kill her baby in the womb by abortion, unborn babies enjoyed the same protections under the law as everyone else as abortion was considered a criminal act punishable by law. Regarding legalized abortion, this attack on innocent human life is without precedent or justification, and gives rise to guilt.
A universal consensus has always criminalized murder, assault, battery, theft, fraud and a host of other conduct under the label “crimes.” Numerous governments react the same way, prohibiting and punishing such behaviors. There is a common factor of “universal conscience” at work in the world, as has been throughout history. People across the world agree, without having to be told, that harmful acts are wrongful. The citizens have approved of governmental protection form criminal acts, and determined that these acts warrant punishment.
Generally, humans are protected from attack, injury or death, and loss of property. Even the Hippocratic Oath, as originally written in 5th Century B.C., required our earliest physicians and healthcare practitioners to swear, “I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” All of this has occurred by consensus and, for the most part, without historical justification other than common practice, due to the root origin of a sense of right and wrong in human conscience.
Why should the act of abortion be treated differently? Why do we not extend the same legal protections to human babies that we so naturally defend for others? Why do we allow pre-born humans to suffer gruesome slaughter and atrocities that, when occurring outside the womb, are sufficient to create international consternation? Yet, defying logic, when these actions occur within the womb, the collective response is a national silence.
The modern justification for the legalized killing of pre-born humans is the specious, 1973 Supreme Court split decision Roe v. Wade. A liberal majority of justices used brute power in a bogus manner, cleverly leading to Roe v. Wade by equally deceptive precedent, holding that adversaries could not offer proof of when human life begins. Abortion proponents on the court also claimed that adversaries could offer neither statute nor case precedent prohibiting abortion. Lacking countervailing statute or case precedent, the majority was free to invent a “right” to kill pre-born babies under the veil of a “penumbra of a right to privacy.”
Throughout human history, the understanding of right and wrong, guided by the human conscience, has acknowledged a universal moral law. As we learned in Brown v. The Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court of the United States of America is prone to error in its attempt to interpret and uphold this moral law. Faulty precedents are rightly reviewed and overruled. Roe v. Wade, flying so flagrantly in the face of the historical human understanding of universal standards of right and wrong, will one day be overruled. The Human Rights and Natural Law Center exists to hasten the process.