The Supreme Court and the Unborn Child

This article was written just after the United States Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision on January 22, 1973.

In reference to the Supreme Court ruling striking down the abortion laws of individual states, this is in the first place an abrogation of state’s rights, and in the second place a complete subversion of the individual rights of human beings. In my opinion such muddle-headed interpretation of the “right to life” could have been arrived at only by the most glaring misinformation and specious argument.

The laws of the United States are intended to protect the rights of the individual. The unborn child is an individual, a human entity from the first moment of conception. Those primarily concerned with the beginning of life – physicians, geneticists, scientists – know this to be a fact. This separate human entity is protected by law, and the State (North Carolina) has long ago assumed the defense of his rights as an individual. Consequently, the welter of legal confusions and entanglements that will result from this supreme misjudgment boggles the imagination.

Let us consider several hypothetical cases:

Case A: Mrs. Wynot, in her 10th week of pregnancy, is being driven to the hospital by her husband to have an abortion performed. Their car is hit by Mr. Bungle’s running a red light. Mrs. Wynot suffers a miscarriage shortly thereafter, so that no professional abortion is performed. Human nature being what it is, Mr. Wynot promptly brings suit against Mr. Bungle for causing the death of his “unborn child.” Mr. Bungle, having obtained certain information, just as promptly counters with a suit against the Wynots, claiming that, according to law, “no child existed or was purported to exist,” by reason of the fact that no infant of less than three months embryonic age is deemed by law to be a human being, but is in fact no more than parasite, and that he is entitled to compensation for the suit by Wynot.

Would you say that the suit by the Wynots was in error, that they should have overlooked the injury (which was not an injury), or that they should have been consistent to the point of rewarding Mr. Bungle for the unintentional service he performed?

Case B: Ms. Willing, unmarried, but “spoken for,” finds that she is pregnant and imparts this knowledge to Mr. Able, the putative father of her unborn child. Mr. Able urges an abortion on the grounds that a child born at this stage would interfere with their plans and cause financial difficulties. Ms. Willing agrees but subsequently finds herself unable to go through with the abortion and is supported in this position by her family.

Mr. Able therefore brings suit against all to force the abortion and for damages, claiming that he is being caused “grievous mental suffering” by reason of Ms. Willing’s “negligence.”

Case C: Mr. and Mrs. Fertle have four children – all over the age of 18 and either married or working. Mrs. Fertle very unexpectedly becomes pregnant again, and during the second month of her pregnancy Mr. Fertle suffers a heart attack and dies. At the reading of Mr. Fertle’s will it becomes apparent that Mr. Fertle has left the bulk of his estate to the four older children and that Mrs. Fertle is left with little more than subsistence for herself, Mr. Fertle having been confident that the older children would provide for their mother.

This they refuse to do unless she agrees to abort her unborn infant. And they, in order to force the abortion, bring suit against their mother claiming that they have no obligation to the unborn child, that it is not a human being, and so has no rights of inheritance either expressed or implied under the law.

[Do these “Cases” seem farfetched? Actually the issues raised by them are real issues and a number of them have been litigated since the Supreme Court’s ruling. What are some of these issues? Examples: At what point in the pregnancy is an embryo considered a human life and become legally protected? What legal rights does the father have regarding his unborn child? What legal rights do the parents of a minor pregnant daughter have? What legal responsibilities do the father, the parents have? Is a person who injures a pregnant woman resulting in the death of her unborn baby legally responsible?

Further, this article reflects some of the positions of abortion advocates, of which the writer was aware when writing, and positions with which we disagree, as follows:

1. The unborn fetus is considered non-human and as such is disposable.
2. The father of the unborn child has no legal rights and no say in the decision to carry the child to term or to abort.
3. The parents of a minor pregnant woman also have no legal rights and no say in the decision to carry the child to term or to abort.
4. The pregnant woman has the “right” to kill her baby in the womb at will. Editor’s Note]

Now, Back to the Article: Furthermore, any man can argue that he is not responsible for the life of his unborn child or for its sustenance or well-being because it is not, by law, a human being. Physicians who advocate or perform abortions are in the clear – the supreme court has just washed the hands of the medical profession. And now the lawyers, by the very nature of the decision, must perforce get in on the act.

And, that most gullible and susceptible of human beings, the sexually-aroused woman, has been “had” again in more ways than one. Pandora’s box has now been opened and she is about to discover that it’s “still a man’s world.” For those women who have so longed to be physically liberated, let me say it is not too late to start thinking instead of emoting. As for the rest of us, we intend to continue to fight this kind of slavery for that is what we know it to be, We feel that on this day womanhood and our country have been set back two hundred years.