Should a Pregnant Woman Be Executed?
GUEST COLUMN
In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Roe v. Wade that it was unable to ascertain whether a fetus is human; the Court decided that a woman’s right to privacy prevails over any rights of the fetus, at least through the first two trimesters and prior to “viability.” Accordingly, any rights the fetus has prior to this time are subservient to the rights of the woman carrying the child.
While altering the laws of the land, the Court’s decision has failed to convince most abortion foes that the fetus is not a person with certain natural rights. Some have made theological or spiritual arguments; others have relied either primarily or secondarily on biology. Advocates of abortion-on-demand have, for their part, either emphasized the interests of the woman carrying a child or denied that the fetus is entitled to any rights.
You May Also Enjoy
The demand for the "rights" of women, homosexuals, animals, and trees is a front for the goal of regulating human breeding as if we're stockyard animals.
My opposition has nothing to do with the Bible or the Church; it is based squarely upon biological science and the political principles upon which our government was founded.
Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality... The Maternal Face of God?: Explorations in Catholic Sophiology... Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion... An Introduction to Ethics: A Natural Law Approach