The joy experienced after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization refuted and overruled Roe v. Wade was quickly dashed when President Biden promptly deplored the Supreme Court’s decision, a condemnation that leaders from other democratic nations were quick to join:

Joe Biden condemned the supreme court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade on Friday, saying the conservative justices’ ruling to eliminate the federal right to abortion access represented “a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error.”¹

* * * * *

The international community is speaking out after Friday’s landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, marking a major change in abortion rights in the United States.

UNITED NATIONS: UN Secretary General spokesperson Stephane Dujarric on Friday reiterated the organization’s position on abortion: “That sexual and reproductive health and rights are the foundation of a life of choice, empowerment and equality for the world’s women and girls.” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet called the ruling a “major setback.”

UNITED KINGDOM: U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Friday, according to the Associated Press. “It’s another jurisdiction. I’ve always believed in a woman’s right to choose and I stick to that view.”

SCOTLAND: “One of the darkest days for women’s rights in my lifetime,” First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon said Friday.

CANADA: “The news coming out of the United States is horrific.” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said. “No government, politician, or man should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body,” he continued.

SPAIN: “We cannot take any rights for granted,” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said, in a tweet translated to English. “Social achievements are always at risk of going backwards and their defense has to be our day to day. Women must be able to decide freely about their lives.”

NORWAY: “The right to abortion can either be banned or tightened in several US states after the US Supreme Court has now overturned the historic ruling from 1972 that surely American women have this right,” Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said, in a tweet translated to English. “This is a serious step backwards for women’s rights!”

FRANCE: “Abortion is a fundamental right for all women,” French President Emmanuel Macron said, in a tweet translated to English. “It must be protected. I express my solidarity with the women whose freedoms are today challenged by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.” “Appalling: the US Supreme Court’s revocation of the right to abortion represents a major setback for fundamental rights,” French Foreign Affairs Minister Catherine Colonna wrote Friday.

BELGIUM:“Very concerned about implications of the decision on Roe v. Wade and the signal it sends to the world,” Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo said. “Banning abortion never leads to fewer abortions, only to more unsafe abortions. Belgium will continue to work with other countries to advance Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights everywhere.”²

These remarks by the leadership of nations with a democratic foundation convey how culturally embedded legalized abortion has permeated the democratic world: not a single word of consideration for the life of pre-born persons. That the democratic world so explicitly expressed its indignation with the revocation of Roe v. Wade—even representatives from the United Nations governing body joined the democratic throng—indicates just how deeply legalized abortion has infected the soul of humanity. This worldwide spread and acceptance of the Roe v. Wade hypocrisy presages that the legalized abortion abomination will not be quickly or easily rectified.

Socially and historically, Dred Scott v. Sandford and Roe v. Wade are the two most repugnant opinions ever promulgated by the United States Supreme Court. Both represent attempts to appease the want of the people-at-large by democratic decrees that usurp truth—both indiscriminately dismissed the notion of personhood for a vulnerable segment of human society, and each plunged the United States into social convulsion. Roe v. Wade— legalized abortion—is the most heinous hypocrisy ever perpetrated against humanity; it is judicially, legislatively, and politically uncivilized; legalized abortion is inhumane.

Inasmuch as the Roe v. Wade court denied the personhood of pre-born persons, the Dobbs court could have judicially reestablished their natural right to personhood but lacked the courage to do so. Thus, even though Dobbs refuted Roe v. Wade, it failed to refute legalized abortion. This glaring omission in Dobbs left intact some sort of legalized abortion facilitation at the discretion of the individual states or whatever. Sadly, the preamble to Dobbs suggests the court had more concern for the appeasement of the people-atlarge than for the truth regarding a pre-born person’s personhood and unalienable right to life:

Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman’s right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality. Still others in a third group think that abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.³

Not addressed in this article, but exemplifying government attempts to appease the want of the people-at-large, is this short list of history’s most infamous appeasement attempts:

• The legalized forced relocation of Native Americans attempted to appease the want of invasive immigrant conquistadors. (The Indian Removal Act, 1830)

• The legalized enslavement of Black Americans attempted to appease the want of White race supremacists. (Dred Scot v. Sandford, 1857)

• The legalized extermination of Jews attempted to appease the want of Aryan race supremacists. (The Nuremberg Laws, 1935)

• The legalized abortion of unwanted pre-born persons attempts to appease the want of libertines and the carefree. (Roe v. Wade, 1973)

• The legalized usurpation of human rights from any vulnerable segment of any population is an attempt to appease the want of a segment of the people-at-large.

And, so, the stigma and repercussions from Roe v. Wade linger on, like the stigmas and repercussions from other malignant appeasement attempts.

This overview of the abortion issue underscores the infinite disparity between the different social stances of the people-at-large in the United States—infinite because there is no compromise between pro-life, i.e., life for all, and pro-abortion, i.e., death for some. Unfortunately, Dobbs failed to resolve the fundamental issue that pre-born human beings are persons and, therefore, have a constitutional right to life under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. If this seems reminiscent of and a rehash of the slavery issue of 1787 through 1863, so be it.

I. Roe v. Wade Omissions

The first section of this essay underscores some of the readily available knowledge that seems to have been purposely omitted from the pro-abortion rhetoric in Roe v. Wade. Such knowledge refutes any notion that might be advanced to perpetuate legalized abortion—such as the notion that “democratic inclinations, i.e., majority opinions, are inherently righteous,” which, subsequently, propagandizes the people-at-large and their leaders with the false conviction that “democratic decrees, i.e., majority opinions, inherently supersede truth.” The following omissions, then, speak to the twisted rhetoric and hypocrisy of the Roe v. Wade court’s opinion and to those who seek to perpetuate its social malignancy.

A. Natural Awareness Refutes Legalized Abortion

In a previous essay—A Case for the Revocation of Roe v. Wade⁴—four arguments were presented that debunk Roe v. Wade: rational evidence, biological evidence, philosophical evidence, and constitutional evidence.

As for rational evidence, each human conception is an individualized, living human person—a living person that exists in a state of being and of becoming, i.e., becoming that-what-it-is, from its first moment of conception until death. Every conceptus—human or otherwise—is of the same kind—of the same substance and nature—as the parents: in this case, human persons. There is also the natural awareness that children are frequently born prematurely and, as such, continue their human development into adulthood in the same manner as term-born children; this attests that each human fetus or embryo is a person before birth.

Regarding biological evidence, every living entity is that-what-it-is, is becoming that-what-it-is, and is that-what-it-is becoming from its first moment of life until death; a living creature that makes of itself that-what-it-is must have intrinsic to its self the substance and nature of that what it makes of itself. In addition, each human conception has a unique DNA code that determines each human conception to be a unique and individualized human person.

Philosophically, “Nothing from nothing ever yet was born,”⁵ that is, nothing can neither beget nor transform itself into something. Scientifically, inorganic substance can neither beget nor transform its self into organic substance, nor can non-rational substance beget or transform its self into rational substance. Scientific evidence suggests that because something is neither added to nor subtracted from the formulation of a human being after conception, the human characteristic of personhood must be intrinsic to the human conception; not even nothing can be born from nothing. The substantive characteristic personhood cannot come forth from nothing.

Constitutionally, the life of every human person is protected by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Roe v. Wade court, however, selectively singled out pre-born persons to be non-persons simply because they were not yet born, similar to the manner in which the Dred Scott v. Sandford court dismissed the personhood of Black Americans simply because they were considered property and, therefore, could not be considered persons. In short, the court dismissed the fact that every person— pre-born or adult—is a person and has an unalienable right to life and personhood, and every Black American—property or not—is a person and has an unalienable right to life and personhood.

B. Ancient Laws Refute Legalized Abortion

The Code of Hammurabi (circa 1700 BC) is very emphatic in its condemnation of abortion.

209. If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her pre-born child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.

210. If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.

211. If a woman of the free class lose her child by a blow, he shall pay five shekels

in money.

212. If this woman die, he shall pay half a mina.

213. If he strike the maid-servant of a man, and she lose her child, he shall pay two shekels in money.

214. If this maid-servant die, he shall pay one-third of a mina.⁶

Similarly, an ancient Assyrian law (circa 1200 BC) condemns to death a woman who willfully aborts her own child.

A50 If a man struck a married woman and caused her to miscarry, the striker’s wife will be treated in the same way: he will pay for the pre-born child on the principle of a life for a life. But if (the first) woman died, the man is to be executed: he will pay for the pre-born child on the principle of a life for a life. If (the first) woman’s husband has no son, and she has been struck causing a miscarriage, the striker will be executed, even if the child was a girl: he will still pay for the pre-born child on the principle of a life for a life.

A51 If a man struck a married woman who does not rear her children and caused her to miscarry, he is to pay two talents of lead.

A52 If a man struck a harlot and caused her to miscarry, he is to be struck with the same number and type of blows: in this way he will pay on the principle of a life for a life.

A53 If a woman aborts her own pre-born child, and she has been charged and convicted, she is to be impaled and not buried. If she died during the abortion, she is (still) to be impaled and not buried. If some woman hid her when had the abortion, and did not report it to the king ⁷

An accompaniment to these ancient laws, the Hippocratic Oath (circa 400 BC), forbids a physician’s participation in both assisted suicide and assisted abortion.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary [a stone: a vaginal suppository] to cause an abortion.⁸

Some contemporary intellectuals, including author of Roe v. Wade Justice Harry Blackmun, sluff off the opposition-to-abortion phrase in the Hippocratic Oath as being too rigid: “Our law should not be that rigid.”⁹ This theory—surmised by Dr. Ludwig Edelstein (1902-1965) because the oath was not fully sanctioned by all Greek intellectuals of the day, nor was it included in Greek civil law—was cited in Roe v. Wade by Justice Blackmun, who seems to have had an aversion to rigid law. Thou shall not kill—too rigid? Thou shall not steal—too rigid? Thou shall not commit adultery— too rigid? Thou shall not deceive—too rigid? The Magna Carta—too rigid? The Declaration of Independence—too rigid? The Constitution of the United States—too rigid? Nonetheless, from the earliest known extant written law to Roe v. Wade—from Hammurabi (1700 BC) to Justice Blackmun (1973 AD), a duration exceeding 3,600 years—most law seems to have been rigid. Now, then, if law is not rigid, does it not simply proceed toward an opinion of the day? If social law is not rigid, how can citizens know their rights and wrongs? Should they simply follow their impulses? If social law is not rigid, how can law enforcement know what and how to curtail crime? Should they simply react? If social law is not rigid, how can judiciaries know what and how to settle disputes? Should they simply posit whimsy?

Aside from this, it is dumbfounding that the Roe v. Wade court could twist the meaning of every person’s constitutional “right to life, liberty, and property” of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments into a diametrically opposing interpretation that denies to pre-born persons their constitutional “right to life, liberty, and property.” Does this perversion of constitutional law by the Roe v. Wade court represent what Justice Blackmun recommends by “Our law should not be that rigid”?

Notwithstanding the rigid nature of the Hippocratic Oath rhetoric or that of the Code of Hammurabi or the ancient Assyrian Laws or the Ten Commandments, however, the reader should understand that there seem to be but three humanly intelligible rigidities—certainties or universal perceptions, if you will; all else is relative to our understanding. The first: God is. “I AM.” The second: Something cannot be born from nothing. “Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.” And the third: Truth is intrinsic to real beings: Truth is intrinsic to all existents. This last one implies the following derivative: Since every existent acts in a manner determined and dictated by its nature, every existent inherently and unequivocally discloses that-what-it-is—the truth of its being; the truth of its self. As such, the traits that an existent discloses of its self are intrinsic truths and thus may not be humanly altered.

Now, that what an existent discloses of its self—discloses of itself without any human interaction—is intrinsic truth, where intrinsic truth is substantively embedded in all existents and is humanly knowable by capable human witnesses to the extent allowed by the existent in which it resides. It is this intrinsic truth in every existent that allows human persons to acquire and to disseminate truth. Thus, the best we human persons can do—and what we humans must do—is seek out the intrinsic truth from what existents disclose of themselves and transform that into human understanding—well defined written law—whether social law or physical law. By the way, isn’t all physical law rigid? Isn’t all physical law a rigid interpretation of the physical traits (intrinsic truths) that physical existents disclose of themselves? To wit: Bridges are designed and built according to physical laws—according to strict adherence to rigid interpretations of the physical traits (intrinsic truths) disclosed by the materials (substances) of which bridges are built.

C. Christian Principles Refute Legalized Abortion

Justice Blackmun seems to have attempted a ruse to entrap the Catholic Church into the pro-abortion faction by incorporating excerpts from some of St. Augustine’s writings into the rhetoric of Roe v. Wade. In spite of the opinions of some noted Catholics from antiquity and from our own era who through ignorance or wantonness become knowing and unknowing advocates of legalized abortion, however, the Catholic Church has never endorsed abortion, and even less has it ever endorsed legalized abortion. And, notwithstanding the seeming attempt by Justice Blackmun to entrap the Catholic Church into some kind of conciliatory pro-abortion stance, there must be restraint in citing Christianity or any other religion as a crutch to condemn legalized abortion, because opposition to abortion is not a foundation tenet of Christianity or of any other known religion. Opposition to abortion is a derivative from the right to life—a foundation principle of civilized humanity—and from there inherently becomes an implied precept of Christianity and of all other religions, whether codified by them or not.

Nonetheless, from Christianity’s earliest beginning, The Didache: The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations (circa 100 AD) has taught “you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.”¹⁰ The Second Vatican Council (1962-65 AD) reaffirmed this pro-life teaching: “[51] For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore, from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.”¹¹

So, why did Justice Blackmun selectively exclude both this earliest and this latest publicized pro-life Catholic teaching from the Roe v. Wade rhetoric—the earliest from nearly two millennia before and the latest nearly a decade before Roe v. Wade was promulgated? Additionally, the post-Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992 AD) teaches the following:

Abortion:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured

abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.¹²

D. The Notion of Person Refutes Legalized Abortion

The most basic principle of civilized humanity has always been the intrinsic rights of the individual person—rights that have existed in the form of written law since at least the Magna Carta—where the term person has always been considered interchangeable with the phrase human being, and where person has always been understood as a creature capable of rationality. During the course of the past several centuries, however, the question of who and what person or personhood is with respect to human life has been so slovenly bandied about that a clear understanding of personhood has become intellectually and socially muddled. To some extent, it seems to have become fashionable to exclude personhood, not only from pre-born persons and slaves, but also from the insane, from those suffering dementia, from the mentally impaired, from the terminally ill, from condemned criminals, from assumed genetic inferiors, et al. Some of the more radical social forces of modern times have proceeded from the notion that human beings are persons only insofar as they can defend themselves from forced human displacement (the Indian Removal Act, 1830), from slavery (Dred Scot v. Sandford, 1857), from social purges (Josef Stalin, 1936-38), from genocide (the Nuremberg Laws, 1935), from cultural purges (Mao Zedong, 1958-76), from abortion (Roe v. Wade, 1973), and from twisted law.

Now, then, Boethius (Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, circa 480-524 AD), a Roman senator and a Christian scholar and philosopher, defined a person as “an individual substance of a rational nature.”¹³ The term substance, as used in this definition, explicitly declares the rational nature to be innate to each human person at conception, and the term rational nature discloses the innate wherewithal to bring about intellectually free-willed rational thought: A rational being is a person.

Boethius’ definition of person was quite acceptable to civilized humanity until slavery was jurisdictionally legalized in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). In Dred Scott the Supreme Court cowardly opined that because slaves were property—according to the court’s interpretation of the Constitution—they could not be considered persons, even though slaves were of the same kind of substance as other human persons. In the following century, along came Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, where Jews were virtually considered nonpersons because they were not of the Aryan race. And, then, of course, Roe v. Wade arbitrarily declared pre-born human persons to be non-persons so that unwanted, pre-born human persons could be legally discarded. This was followed by a change in the United States Code (August 5, 2002) regarding the meaning of the term person as used by all United States federal government agents and agencies, i.e., all federal legislative, judicative, and executive pursuits. However, because the term person was corrupted by the Supreme Court in its 1973 pro-abortion decree, the code’s inferred interpretation of person cannot be considered either right or true, given that any interpretation of law by the author of the code—the House of Representatives—is subordinate to the court’s prerogative:

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person,” “human being,” “child,” and “individual,” shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.¹⁴

Given that personhood is non-physical and invisible, does the Congress—the House of Representatives—really believe that a human person’s possession of a rational nature is validated by or maybe even infused into them by their physical breathing? By their physically beating heart? By their physically pulsating umbilical cord? As absurd as these remarks in the code might seem, the 107th Congress acquiesced to legalized abortion by its purposeful exclusion of pre-born persons from federal government guardianship.

II. Personhood Refutes Legalized Abortion

In what follows, the notion of personhood will be righted and rendered unambiguous. Although personhood is invisible and seemingly abstruse, the concept of personhood will be made intelligibly understood by all mankind: theists, materialists, and, I hope, also by those espousing a laissez-faire philosophy. Much of the following is more timely than when Roe v. Wade was decreed, but it attests to the previous remarks in this essay—and vice versa—and to the personhood of pre-born human beings.

Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade court opined that pre-born persons are nonpersons, thereby insinuating that a human person’s rational nature or personhood is separate from their animal nature, it seems appropriate to rebut that opinion in like manner while maintaining Boethius’ definition of person as an “individual substance possessed of a rational nature.” It seems the court’s declaration stems from its opinion that pre-born persons spontaneously become infused with their rational nature at birth or sometime thereafter; when and by what means the court neglected to outline. Nonetheless, human persons have both an animal nature and a rational nature; the causation and effects (their bodies) of their animal nature are both physical and visible, whereas the causation and effects (their thoughts) of their rational nature are both non-physical and invisible.

Now, there seem to be times when a human person is not rational, such as when a person is pre-born, or in a coma, or unconscious, or rationally listless, or otherwise mentally impaired; there are times when a human person seems to be active only in animal mode—when only the physical self is in action. Additionally, when an adult person is extremely flustered or in a highly emotional state, the adult’s actions might be considered non-rational; such a person is not in a rational mode. However, when a human person’s actions appear to be in an animal mode only, one may not assume that the person lacks innate possession of a rational nature, only that the rational nature is inactive.

Since everyone has been a student at some time, the evidence of a person’s innate rational nature—and the progression of rational activity from that rational nature—seems credibly exemplified by the manner in which a student develops rationality; where thought processes are developed from previously attained sensations—attained through their animal nature—that are then synthesized and directed in some orderly manner toward a judgment. From a succession of developed thought processes, then, the student acquires an ability to compare, to solve problems, and to resolve complex issues—to rationalize. But, to begin organized thought processes, the student must first possess a rational nature and have had physical sensations—random at first and then more systematic as further thought processes are developed.

In retrospect, a human person does not immediately think in a rational mode at birth; the rational mode must be activated, perhaps serendipitously at first, and then further by a person’s own volition or by governance from other persons (parents, teachers, et al.). It does seem as though physical sensations and perceptions awaken a person’s rational nature and activate the rational mode, exemplified by Anne Sullivan’s use of physical intervention and interaction to awaken the rational nature and to teach her student, the blind and deaf Helen Keller.

A newborn infant, then, does not perform in a rational mode on his or her own until, perhaps, childhood or maybe even adolescence. For a person’s rational mode to be activated, however, a rational nature must first be present. To assume that the infusion of a rational nature and the activation of a person’s rational mode are simultaneous at birth or sometime thereafter—as seems to be assumed in Roe v. Wade—is absurd and irrational; the thing that causes an effect must precede the effect. It further seems irrational for a person’s rational nature to be self-infused from the animal nature—which also seems to be inferred in Roe v. Wade—because animal nature causation and effects are both physical and visible, whereas rational nature causation and effects are both non-physical and invisible; animal nature and rational nature are genetically distinct. So, it seems that human persons have both an intrinsic animal nature and an intrinsic rational nature; both are present before birth, both are substantive, both seem to be acquired at conception, because no other something enters into the conceived substance after conception, and both seem to continue their development side by side after conception.

Now, then, understand that it is impossible for something to be born from nothing: “Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.” Consonant with this observation, contemporary science declares “Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) to be the unique genetic makeup of an individual; DNA is a self-replicating material [substance] that is present in nearly all living organisms as the main constituent of chromosomes and is the carrier of genetic information.”¹⁵ Further, “DNA is a molecule that contains the biological instructions that make each species unique.”¹⁶ These notions should enlighten the reader that creatures lacking a specific substance and nature cannot—by their own doing—beget or transform their selves into creatures that embody that specific substance and nature. For example, inorganic substance cannot beget or transform its self into vegetable substance, nor can vegetable substance beget or transform its self into animal substance, nor can animal substance beget or transform its self into rational substance, i.e., a human person. Scientifically, inorganic matter cannot self-transform into organic matter; scientifically, lower forms of existence cannot self-transform into higher forms of existence; scientifically, non-persons cannot self-transform into persons.

The reader should further understand that because something is neither added to nor subtracted from the formulation of the conceived substance of a human being after conception, and because the conceived substance of a human being grows itself into that living person that-it-is, personhood must be intrinsic to the conceived substance—the fertilized egg—of every human being. The conceived substance of a human being—the human conceptus— is a living human person in microscopic form.

Now, “Is there such a thing as a rational person? The short answer is no. The harder you try to be purely rational the less likely it is you’ll get there. What people have is the capacity for rational thought. That capacity exists in human DNA plus a mechanism to enact that DNA.”17 Scientifically, for the innate capacity of any living organism to come into existence—and to grow—a seed must be present, where the seed is the microscopic embryo of the living organism. The seed of a human person is the fertilized egg—the conceptus—that becomes an embryo at the moment when cell division first begins. And, as each living cell further divides and multiplies itself, the descendant cells must receive their substance and nature from the parent cell, because no other something is involved in the activity. As such, the total composition of cells that make a living organism—at any time in its development—must receive its substance and nature from that original seed or conceived cell. Since the substance of every living, natural being is formed at conception either sexually (i.e., through two parents producing genetically unique offspring) or asexually (i.e., through a single parent producing genetically identical offspring), the characteristic substance designated as the personhood of every human being must be concomitant with conception. As for the nature of human beings—living human persons—personhood must be intrinsic to the conceived cell: the human conceptus:

[F]rom the zygote stage onward, the human embryo has within it all of the internal information needed—including chiefly its genetic and epigenetic constitution—and the active disposition to develop itself to the mature stage of a human organism. As long as the embryo is reasonably healthy and is not denied or deprived of a suitable environment and adequate nutrition, it will actively develop itself along the speciesspecific trajectory of development. This means that the embryo has the same nature—in other words, it is the same kind of entity—from fertilization onward; there is only a difference in degree of maturation, not in kind, between any of the stages from embryo, to fetus, infant and so on . . .

Embryos are whole human beings, at the early stage of their maturation. The term “embryo,” similar to the terms “infant” and “adolescent”, refers to a determinate and enduring organism at a particular stage of development.¹⁸

Every human being, then, is a living person in a state of becoming that person that-it-is from conception until death. And, therefore, from conception forward, intrinsic truth confirms every human being to be a living person whose conceived substance—the conceptus—is possessed of that wherewithal that capacitates and engenders self-awareness and free-willed rational thought, where that wherewithal is the operative personhood. Paraphrasing Boethius, a person is an individual living entity whose substance is possessed of that wherewithal that capacitates and engenders self-awareness and free-willed rational thought; a human conceptus is such a person.

I stated earlier that physical law is a rigid interpretation of the physical traits (intrinsic truths) that physical existents disclose of themselves. I also showed that without rigidity in social law, social law is apt to become “opinion of the day,” “impulsive,” “reactionary,” and “whimsy.” It is patently wrong, then, to decree “diametrically opposing interpretations” of the inherent social traits (intrinsic truths) that social existents disclose of themselves. And, in a manner analogous to physical law—where physical law is a rigid interpretation of the physical traits (intrinsic truths) that physical existents disclose of themselves—the rigid interpretation of the social traits (intrinsic truths) that social existents disclose of themselves demonstrates that human beings are persons at all stages of development; therefore, human conceptuses are persons. Question: Since intrinsic truth denounces abortion and legalized abortion snubs truth, what becomes of pro-abortion societies that supersede truth with hypocrisy?

An overall agreement of the presented evidence—natural knowledge, ancient understandings, Christian guidance, modern science, philosophy, constitutional law, and the concept of person—demonstrates that abortion is immoral and that legalized abortion is criminal. The very phrase legalized abortion is hypocrisy; legalized crimes are crimes whether legalized slavery, legalized genocide, or legalized abortion; crimes may not be legalized.

Not even democracy supersedes truth.

NOTES

1. Joan E. Greve, “Biden condemns US supreme court’s ‘tragic error’ of overturning Roe v Wade,” the Guardian, June 24, 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/24/biden-condemns-supreme-court-dobbs-jackson (Accessed March 16, 2023).

2. Zoe Christen Jones, “World leaders react to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade,” June 24, 2022 / CBS News, (Accessed September 27, 2022).

3. Dobbs v. State Health Officer of The Mississippi Department of Health, https://www. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf (Accessed June 24, 2022).

4. A case for the Revocation of Roe v. Wade, Lyle R. Strathman, the Human Life Review, Vol. XLVI, Fall 2020, page 10.

5. Lucretius (Titus Lucretius Carus), On the Nature of Things, Book I, Substance is Eternal, trans. William Ellery Leonard, http://classics.mit.edu/Carus/nature_things.1.i.html (Accessed July 8, 2016).

6. The Code of Hammurabi, trans. L. W. King, Internet Sacred Text Archive, https://www.sacredtexts.com/ane/ (Accessed September 29, 2022).

7. Middle Assyrian Law Code, trans. G. R. Driver & J. C. Miles and Theophile Meek, http:// jewishchristianlit.com/Texts/ANElaws/midAssyrLaws.html (Accessed September 29, 2022).

8. The Hippocrates Oath, trans. Michael North, History of Medicine—National Library of Medicine—National Institute of Health, https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/topics/greek-medicine/index. html#case1 (Accessed October 4, 2022).

9. Roe v. Wade, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113 (Accessed October 4, 2022).

10. The Didache, Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Gross Sin Forbidden, trans. by M.B. Riddle, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm (Accessed September 29, 2022).

11. Gaudium et Spes, The Documents of Vatican II, https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_ vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html (Accessed September 30, 2022).

12. “Respect for Human Life,” Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2259ff, https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/  P7Z.HTM (Accessed September 30, 2022).

13. “Person,” https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/abs/definition-of-person/FC5303FED961CDC1B254BD1923A5B940 (Accessed December 23, 2022).

14. United States Code, https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim/title1/chapter1&edition=prelim (Accessed March 29, 2023).

15. Understanding DNA, SUDC Foundation, http://tinyurl.com/avx55kxw (Accessed November 14, 2022).

16. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) Fact Sheet, National Human Genome Research Institute, https:// www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Deoxyribonucleic-Acid-Fact-Sheet (Accessed Dec 4, 2022).

17. Prudy Gourguechon, “Is There Such a Thing As a Rational Person?”, Forbes, https:// www.forbes.com/sites/prudygourguechon/2017/12/18/is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-rationalperson/?sh=6fb24224157a (Accessed December, 26, 2022).

18. Robert P. George and Patrick Lee, Embryonic human persons, National Center for Biotechnology information, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672893/#:~:text=Embryos%20 are%20whole%20human%20beings,and%20I%20once%20were%20embryos. (Accessed December 21, 2022).

 

_____________________________________

Original Bio:Lyle R. Strathman, who is 87 years old, is married, the father of five children, and a retired electronics engineer. He authored the non-fiction book Toward Peace.