CMW-WB-CH13

UNIT 5 CHAPTER 13 

Abortion 

282

Chapter 13 Overview 

Abortion is one of the gravest systematic injustices against human beings in the history of humankind. The 

unborn baby is not simply an innocent human being; he or she is the most defenseless of us all. Scientific 

advances in the last half century have clearly shown that from the moment of conception the unborn child is 

biologically a completely unique human being. Like any other human being, the unborn child possesses a soul 

and must be given the same rights and protections as any other human person. The Catholic Church has always 

been steadfastly against abortion. She proclaims to the world the intrinsic goodness, personhood, and 

inalienable rights of every human being. 

In this chapter you will learn that … 

■ The Catholic Church has always steadfastly opposed the practice of abortion and proclaims the sanctity 

of human life to the world. 

■ There is significant scientific evidence for the existence of full human nature and personhood beginning 

at the moment of conception. 

■ Human nature is not dependent on accidental characteristics; the true substance of a human being is 

present throughout the course of his or her development, from conception to death. 

■ Abortion is not only destructive to unborn babies, but also to the emotional and spiritual wellbeing of the 

women who undergo it. 

■ Unlike legal rights granted by the State, inalienable rights are those rights necessary to act according to 

human nature and belong to a person by their very human existence. 

■ History illustrates that the suspension of inalienable human rights by the State leads to grave injustice and 

the violation of human dignity. 

Bible Basics 

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, 

and before you were born I consecrated you…” 

— Jeremiah 1:5 

Connections to the Catechism 

■ CCC 2272 

■ CCC Glossary 

You formed my inmost being; you knit me in 

my mother’s womb. I praise you, because I am 

wonderfully made; wonderful are your works! 

— Psalm 139:13-14 (NABRE) 

© Sophia Institute for Teachers 

283

Chapter 13 

The Grave Injustice of Abortion 

After Roe v. Wade, almost 65 

million abortions occurred. 

The Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion, like other issues, has long 

been the source of controversy within the culture. Nevertheless, abortion 

is perhaps the gravest instance of systematic injustice perpetrated 

on tens of millions of human beings in the history of humankind, comparable 

only to genocides committed by regimes such as Nazi Germany, 

Stalinist Russia, communist China, and communist Cambodia. Each 

year approximately 73 million abortions are performed throughout 

the world. 1 In the US alone, the Centers for Disease Control reported 

620,327 abortions in 2020 (the most recent year data is available). 2 

That number is comparable to the entire population of cities such as 

Detroit and Memphis killed in one year. 

Crosses representing children who have died as a result of abortion in Natchez, MS. 

284 Apologetics II: Challenges of the Modern World 

© Magis Center

Many today, despite the clear evidence that proves otherwise, 

falsely believe that an unborn baby is nothing more than a soulless 

clump of tissue, not yet a person and devoid of rights — even the right 

to live. Some may concede that the unborn child is or may be a person, 

but they believe that the mother’s right to bodily autonomy supersede 

any rights the unborn child may possess. Ultimately, both of 

these camps believe it is a private matter to be decided between a 

woman and her doctor whether or not to kill her unborn baby. In 1973, 

the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade determined that there is a 

right to an abortion consistent with the Constitution and forced states 

to allow first and second trimester abortion on demand throughout the 

US. For nearly 50 years these false perspectives about the unborn child 

were protected by an ill-conceived constitutional interpretation. In the 

nearly half century since Roe v. Wade, almost 65 million abortions have 

occurred, equal to more than a fifth of today’s US population. In June 

2022, the Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson overturned Roe v. 

Wade, ruling that the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a right to 

abortion. The immediate effect of this decision was to return the power 

of determining the legality of abortion to individual states, as it was prior 

to Roe v. Wade. 

So, why has the Catholic Church steadfastly been against abortion, 

not just in the last half century in the US, but from the very beginning 

and throughout the world? What do we believe as Catholics, supported 

by the latest in medical science, about the personhood of unborn 

babies, when the human soul comes into existence, and what rights of 

the unborn should be acknowledged? This chapter will examine each of 

these questions. 

Aa 

VOCABULARY 

Zygote: A single-celled 

human being that comes to be 

in the moment of fertilization. 

The zygote contains a full, 

unique human genome and 

is biologically a completely 

unique human being. It is the 

very first stage of human 

development, from which 

all cells constituting a fully 

developed human being 

throughout his or her lifetime 

will be produced. 

The Humanity of the Zygote According to 

Biological Criteria 

The biological, embryological, and genetic evidence for the existence 

of human nature and human personhood at the moment of conception 

is significant. DNA sequencing shows conclusively that a full, unique, 

human genome is present at the moment of fertilization. The union of 

a sperm and ovum give rise to a new cell called a zygote, that did not 

exist before, and which contains a new genetic code that belongs to a 

completely new individual human being. 3 

The single-celled zygote is far more than a mere cell. It is a self-moving, 

self-perfecting, dynamic organism that is genetically, organically, 

and metabolically distinct from its parent gametes, through which all 

© Sophia Institute for Teachers Unit 5, Chapter 13: Abortion 

285

Accidentals: Non-essential 

qualities or characteristics of 

something. 

Substance: That which is 

necessary for something to be 

what it is. 

cells constituting a fully developed human being throughout a lifetime 

will be produced. It is biologically a completely unique human being. 4 

What differentiates this human being from an adult human being? 

Nothing, except the emergence of the cells that already exist in potentiality. 

By “in potentiality,” we do not mean that the human zygote is 

somehow potentially a human being but not currently. Rather, the zygote 

is a human being at the earliest stage of development. It is smaller, 

lighter, and less developed than an adult human being (much like a twoyear-old 

or ten-year-old child, but at an earlier stage of development), 

but everything is present in it to enable that development. Similarly, 

just as a kindergartner does not have all the cells he will have in his body 

by the time he is in high school, he is still the same person. He has, in 

potential, all that is necessary to continue to progress throughout the 

stages of human development. 

Importantly, human nature does not depend on accidental characteristics 

(the non-essential qualities or characteristics of something). A 

human being does not have to be six feet tall, five feet tall, two hundred 

pounds, or fifty pounds to be human. He or she does not have to be 

black, white, or brown to be human. Similarly, a human being does not 

have to have 25%, 50%, or 100% of his or her adult cells to be human. 

Rather, the substance (that which is necessary for something to be the 

thing that it is) of a human being is present throughout the course of a 

human being’s development. The humanness (or human substance) of 

someone is present from the moment of his or her conception and remains 

present throughout his or her lifetime. If we try to define human 

nature by an accidental characteristic (such as skin color, height, levels 

of intelligence, or specific talents), we will falsely brand many human 

beings as non-human. Doing so can (and has many times throughout 

history) justify atrocities like eugenics, genocide, slavery, and abortion. 

Many embryological textbooks today indicate that a unique human 

being (distinct from his or her mother) begins at fertilization/conception. 

5 For example, Moore’s Clinically Oriented Embryology states the 

following: 

A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. 

Human development begins at fertilization, the process 

during which a male gamete … unites with a female 

gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called 

a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks 

the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. 6 

Furthermore, two recent surveys of thousands of professional biologists 

around the world and in the US show that an overwhelming 


© Magis Center

The humanness of someone is 

present from the moment of 

conception. 

Little Brother by Anna Ancher (1905). 

majority believe that the beginning of a new, unique, self-actualizing 

human life occurs at fertilization. 7 

Inasmuch as the single-celled zygote is in potentiality a full, unique, 

self-actualizing human being, then to kill him or her is the same as killing 

any unique self-actualizing human being, which is a violation not only of 

Jewish and Christian law, but also natural law and the common law (the 

commonly accepted tradition [based on rules and judicial precedents 

rather than statutory laws] that has become commonly accepted as if it 

were statutory law within the legal systems of Great Britain, its colonies, 

and the United States). 

As can be seen, personhood (and the inalienable rights belonging 

to persons, especially the right to life) must be identified with the presence 

of a unique substantially whole human being (whether that human 

being is completely developed or partially developed). Discrimination 

against some human beings on the basis of development has led not 

only to the false justification of abortion, but also to genocide, mass 

incarceration, slavery, and many other outrages against unique human 

beings throughout the course of history. If we are to put an end to such 

massive fundamental injustices, we must, as the Catholic Church teaches, 

acknowledge the intrinsic goodness, personhood, and inalienable 

rights of every unique human being regardless of their state of development, 

education, physical ability, intellectual ability, age, ethnic origin, 

or any other accidental characteristic. 


287

Do Unborn Babies Have Souls? 

As we have learned, the human person is made in God’s image and likeness 

as a unity of body and soul (see Chapter 12). The soul may be defined 

as the lifegiving principle of a living thing. Simply put, it is the soul 

that makes a living thing alive. By this definition, all living things have 

souls — including plants and animals — proper to the kind of thing it is. 

Human beings (and angels) possess immortal rational souls. Like God, 

we possess an intellect, free will, and the capacity for love. Further, the 

soul is the form of the body. That is, the union of our soul with our body 

is what makes us what we are — human. 

Unborn babies are living 

human beings: body and soul 

are united from the moment 

they become alive. 

Study of Fetus in the Womb by Leonardo Da Vinci (ca. 1510). 


© Magis Center

What evidence is there for the soul’s existence? The soul is not a 

physical thing and cannot be sampled and placed in a test tube for scientific 

observation. It transcends the abilities of science to completely 

study and explain. There is, however, considerable evidence for the existence 

of the soul, even in unborn babies. Near-death experiences, 

or NDEs, are cases where people clinically die for a time, and then return 

to life. Thousands of NDEs have been well-documented and scientifically 

studied. It is commonly reported in cases of NDEs that people 

had conscious out-of-body experiences where they could still see 

and hear what was going on around them despite lack of electrical brain 

activity. They report the experience of moving outside their body, and 

even passing through walls in the hospital and observing details in other 

parts of the hospital, correctly reporting later the clothing or conversation 

of relatives and friends in the waiting room and even of complete 

strangers. One study showed that many continue to see for several 

minutes after cardiac arrest, even though the brain shuts down within 

30-seconds. Another study showed that many were aware of being 

dead and felt positive emotions, met with a deceased person, experienced 

moving through a tunnel and/or a celestial landscape, and had 

an experience where they were moving separately from their physical 

body. A further study of 31 blind patients who had an NDE found that 

80% reported being able to see during clinical death. There are thousands 

more similar cases that cannot be explained by any known physical 

or physiological explanation. Taken together, the data shows the 

very strong likelihood that there is something about our consciousness 

that goes beyond anything physical. It lives on even when a person is 

considered medically brain dead. We may call this non-physical element 

of ourselves the soul. If this is the case, as the evidence shows, 

and we do have a transcendent soul that will survive bodily death that is 

self-conscious, can see, think, remember, move at will, and even transcend 

physical laws (going through walls and defying gravity), then we 

must ask when does a human being become ensouled? In other words, 

when are our souls united with our bodies? 

It would stand to reason that, because the soul is the lifegiving 

principle of a living thing — that which makes a living thing alive — the 

soul would be united with the person at the moment he or she becomes 

alive. Since we have already established that the human zygote 

is a living human person from the moment it comes into existence — 

the moment of conception — then, it would also stand to reason that a 

human being becomes ensouled at the moment of conception. 

Near-Death Experiences: 

Events where people undergo 

clinical death and then 

return to physical life, some 

reporting afterward that they 

maintained consciousness, 

despite the absence of brain 

function. 


289

The child — 

whether a 

seconds old 

zygote or nine 

months old and 

ready to be born 

— is not simply an 

innocent human 

being; he or 

she is the most 

defenseless of 

us all. 

The soul transcends the physical universe, which means it could not 

have come from a physical evolutionary process. It would have to come 

from a transcendent cause — God. We might ask, then, what God’s view 

of abortion — “the deliberate termination of pregnancy by killing the unborn 

child” (CCC Glossary) — might be. If God created a single-celled 

zygote to be the self-actualizing, unifying, and organizing power from 

which would come every cell of a unique human being throughout his 

or her lifetime, would He view the direct killing of the zygote as morally 

neutral? If God ensouls humans at the very moment a zygote comes 

into being, would He view the direct killing of that being whom He just 

ensouled as morally neutral? Given all we have learned thus far, it would 

seem clear that abortion goes against the creative and loving will of 

God in a most direct and grievous way. Abortion, therefore, ought to be 

considered as serious in God’s eyes as the murder of any innocent adult 

human being, such as Cain murdering his brother Abel. 

The direct killing of an unborn baby, however, represents perhaps 

an even graver offense than killing an adult. The child — whether a second 

old zygote or nine month old fetus ready to be born — is not simply 

an innocent human being; he or she is the most defenseless of us all. 

Thus, recognizing this gravity, the Catholic Church attaches the most 

severe of penalties to those who formally cooperate in an abortion: “‘A 

person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae 

sententiae,’ ‘by the very commission of the offense’” (CCC 2272). 

Importantly, the Catechism emphasizes that, by attaching such a severe 

penalty to abortion, the Church “does not thereby intend to restrict 

the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime 

committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to 

death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society” (CCC 2272). 

It should be noted that the automatic excommunication brought about 

by the procurement of an abortion can be lifted. Ordinarily, the sin of 

abortion, because of its gravity, has been considered a sin reserved to 

bishops alone to grant forgiveness in the Sacrament of Penance and 

Reconciliation, once confessed, thus lifting the excommunication for 

the penitent. In 2016, however, Pope Francis granted all priests the authority 

to absolve the confessed sin of abortion. This move does not 

lessen the gravity of the sin of abortion, but rather is intended to emphasize 

the mercy of God and make it more readily accessible to the 

penitent who sincerely desires to return to the Church. 

Recall that mortal sins require full knowledge and full consent of the 

will. Many mothers who seek an abortion may have serious impediments 

to their freedom (e.g., family and social pressures) that may mitigate 


© Magis Center

the sinfulness of their actions. Nevertheless, the sin of abortion is so serious 

that the impediment to freedom would have to be quite severe in 

proportion to the gravity of the sin. As Christ’s representative on earth, 

the Catholic Church has the responsibility of conveying truthfully the 

gravity and seriousness of the direct killing of an innocent and defenseless 

human being by abortion. It is for this reason the Church considers 

it the preeminent moral issue confronting the world today. 8 

Post Abortion Syndrome 

Abortion victimizes women too. As we have seen with other effects of 

the Sexual Revolution, those who abortion supposedly liberated — women 

— are actually terribly hurt by it. Some of the earliest American 

champions of women’s rights realized the true beneficiaries of abortion 

(known then as child-murder) were men, not women. Susan B. Anthony 

wrote of abortion in 1869: “No matter what the motive: love of ease, or a 

desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully 

guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will 

burden her soul in death; but oh! thrice guilty is he who, for selfish gratification, 

heedless of her prayers, indifferent to her fate, drove her to the 

desperation which impelled her to the crime.” [Emphasis added] 

Abortion is the murder of an 

innocent human being, just like 

the first murder of Abel by his 

brother Cain. 

Cain and Abel by Nicolas Beatrizet (1544). 


291

There is a proven negative 

impact on the mental health of 

a large number of women who 

have had abortions. 

Woman in Bed by József Rippl-Rónai (1891). 

As Anthony suspected, many women who have had abortions suffer 

from depression, anxiety, and other mental health challenges after 

doing so. Pro-abortion advocates argue that there is not sufficient 

evidence to prove that abortion causes an increase in mental health 

problems compared with women in the general population and those 

who brought their pregnancies to term. A large 2011 statistical study of 

750,000 women, however, found the following 9 : 

■ Abortion produces an 81% higher risk of mental health problems in 

women. 

■ There is a 4.1 times greater likelihood of suicides in women who have 

an abortion compared with those who did not. 

■ There is a 2.5 times greater likelihood of suicidal behaviors in women 

having abortions than those who did not. 

■ There is a 2.1 times greater likelihood of alcohol abuse in women 

having an abortion than those who did not. 

■ There is a 1.4 times greater likelihood in the occurrence of depression 

in women having an abortion than those who did not. 

■ There is a 1.3 times greater likelihood in the occurrence of anxiety in 

women having an abortion than those who did not. 


© Magis Center

These statistics show conclusively that abortion has a persistent 

negative impact on the mental health of a large majority of women who 

have had abortions (in comparison to those who do not). The above 

study implies that the bond between mother and preborn infant is quite 

strong even if there is anxiety or distress about the pregnancy. As we 

discussed earlier, our transcendental desires do not go away if we ignore 

them. It seems that a significant percentage of women have strong 

feelings of maternal care, responsibility, and protectiveness even if the 

pregnancy is surprising or distressing. Abortions are not only destructive 

to preborn babies, but also to the emotional health of women who 

have them. Some might say it is harsh or cruel to point out the emotional 

damage done to women by abortion. But what is truly cruel is to 

conceal this reality and pretend it does not exist. Truly, women deserve 

better than abortion. 

What can we do to help those who are experiencing what is known 

as post abortion syndrome? There are several Catholic and social counseling 

services that are directed at helping women through the process 

of grieving, depression, and guilt. 

■ Project Rachel, sponsored by the US Council of Catholic Bishops, 10 

is a network of diocesan ministries in almost every state, of priests 

and counselors who provide pastoral and counseling services, 

retreats, support groups, and referrals to clinical professionals to 

help women overcome the emotional effects of abortion. 

Abortions 

are not only 

destructive to 

preborn babies, 

but also to 

the emotional 

health of women 

who have them. 

■ Rachel’s Vineyard is a ministry 11 that offers individual counseling, 

support groups, and retreat experience to help women overcome 

the negative emotional effects of abortion. 

■ Life Perspectives offers education and resources to professionals 

and care providers to help them offer health and services to women 

and families suffering from abortion and miscarriage. 12 They offer an 

extensive list of resources in various geographical areas specifically 

to help women with emotional problems after abortion. 13 Simply 

enter your location on the map, and you will be given dozens of 

resources for counseling and support groups in that location. 14 

Many of us know women who are suffering silently but fearful of revealing 

their anxiety and depression to others. If you are aware of these 

increased anxiety levels in your friends, be a good Samaritan and suggest 

a faithful counseling service or group support near you. They will 

receive help, not judgment. 


293

Legal Rights: Civil or political 

rights declared into existence 

by governments, such as the 

right to a jury trial, or to vote 

in certain elections. Because 

they are granted by the state, 

civil or political rights may 

also be justly suspended or 

revoked if the need arises, 

due process is provided, 

and inalienable rights are 

respected. 

Inalienable Rights: Rights 

gifted by God that belong 

to all persons by their very 

humanity, such as rights to 

life, liberty, property, and the 

pursuit of happines. They are 

necessary to act according 

to human nature and cannot 

be arbitrarily negated by any 

government, court, or vote. 

The Violation of Inalienable Rights: Slavery and 

Abortion 

As may now be apparent, the idea of personhood is exceedingly important. 

As we have learned, though the single-celled human zygote 

that comes into being at conception is less developed, it is indisputably 

a unique substantially whole self-actualizing human being. Furthermore, 

for centuries, “person” was identified with “human being.” For example, 

the 18th century English code of law, known as “common law,” understood 

the pre-born human being to be “in contemplation of the law” a 

legal person with legal rights. 15 

The notion of personhood is so important because it is a recognition 

of the legal status of a human being and a recognition of his or 

her inalienable and legal rights. Thus, to deny that someone is a person 

could lead to the denial of their legal rights. There is a difference, however, 

between a person’s legal rights given to them by the State and the 

inalienable rights that belong to human beings by their very humanity. 

Legal rights are those civil or political rights declared into existence by 

governments, such as the right to a jury trial, or to vote in certain elections. 

Because legal rights are given by the authority of the State, the 

State may have the power to suspend or nullify them if the need arises 

and proper protocol is followed. 

On the other hand, an inalienable right is one that is necessary to 

be human — necessary to act according to human nature. Thus, if a human 

being exists, so also does his or her inalienable rights to life, liberty, 

property, and the pursuit of happiness. Any government, court, or vote 

that attempts to arbitrarily negate them is unjust and illegitimate. 

Because inalienable rights belong to a person by their very human 

existence, we can know whether something is an inalienable right 

by asking, “Is this supposed ‘right’ necessary for somebody to be human 

— to act according to human nature?” Using this criterion, we can 

see that the rights to life, and freedom, must be inalienable rights because 

one needs to be alive in order to act according to human nature. 

So also, one needs to have a reasonable amount of freedom (control 

over ones’ livelihood and destiny) to exercise uniquely human characteristics 

— intellectual creativity and the freedom to love and do good 

(or to be unloving and do evil). Thus, without life or freedom, we cannot 

be human — we cannot act according to human nature. 

What about other potential rights? Is abortion an inalienable right? 

Though the Supreme Court declared that abortion is a constitutional 

“right,” it cannot be considered an inalienable right, because having 


© Magis Center

Neither slavery nor abortion 

are necessary in order to act 

according to human nature. 

The Little Prisoner by Francisco de Goya (ca. 1810). 

an abortion is not necessary for acting according to human nature. 

Similarly, slavery has been understood by some as a right throughout 

world history and the US Supreme Court endorsed this view in Dred 

Scott v. Sanford (1857), but again, practicing slavery cannot be considered 

an inalienable right because enslaving people is not necessary in 

order to act according to human nature. 

The worst atrocities in history — genocides, slavery, and eugenics 

— have been falsely justified by tyrants in two ways: 

1. Lawmakers or courts make a distinction between human beings 

and persons, indicating that some group of people are not 

considered persons (deserving of protection under the law) 

even though they are indisputably human beings — such as 

Indians in South America, Africans in the slave trade, Jewish 

people in Nazi Germany, and preborn human beings in the US, 

Europe, and Asia today. 

2. Those governments or courts ignore the inalienable rights of 

those indisputably established human beings. When they do this, 

they reduce a human being’s rights to legal rights alone — ignoring 

their natural inalienable rights. 


295

Once classified as nonpersons, 

Africans could be 

transitioned into the legal 

jurisdiction of property. 

Slaves waiting for Sale, Richmond, VA by Eyre Crowe (1861). 

In the law, if a being is not a person, then it is considered property. 

For example, cattle are animal beings, but not persons. Therefore, 

a farmer’s cattle are his property, like his house or farming equipment; 

he owns them. He can raise them for dairy or for slaughter. In the 1500s 

a distinction was made in European law between “human being” and 

“person” to justify the enslavement of native peoples by colonialist 

powers and the slave trade. Since it was difficult to deny the humanity 

of African and other native peoples, the term person was reconfigured 

to signify a legal person (a human being deserving of protection under 

the law) based on that human being’s current state of education and 

societal development. This distinction allowed slave traders to classify 

slaves as humans who were not persons — humans that could be enslaved 

because their so-called inferior status made them undeserving 

of protection under the law. Once African natives were classified as 

non-persons, they could be transitioned into the legal jurisdiction of 

property. 16 This legal distinction between human and person first made 

its way to the US in a 1659-60 Virginia statute. 17 Though there were perceived 

tensions between enslaved Africans’ evident humanity and their 

legal status as property, their classification as non-persons allowed for 

the relegation of them to chattel (property which is movable), justifying 

their enslavement. 18 


© Magis Center

In 1857, in one of the most outrageous Supreme Court Decisions in 

US history, Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Court unanimously sanctioned 

slavery of African Americans (declared to be “an inferior class of beings”) 

to subjugation by the “dominant race”: 

The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors 

were imported into this country, and sold as 

slaves, become a member of the political community 

formed and brought into existence by the Constitution 

of the United States, and as such become entitled to 

all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed 

by that instrument to the citizen? … We think they 

[can] not, and that they are not included, and were not 

intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in 

the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the 

rights and privileges which that instrument provides 

for and secures to citizens of the United States. On 

the contrary, they were at that time considered as a 

subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been 

subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated 

or not, yet remained subject to their authority, 

and had no rights or privileges but such as those who 

held the power and the Government might choose to 

grant them. 19 

Declaring African Americans to be an “inferior class of beings,” the 

Supreme Court implicitly relegated them to the status of non-personhood 

or property, intentionally ignoring their inalienable rights as human 

beings, and only addressing the status of their legal rights according to 

the court’s interpretation of the Constitution. 

While the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford was unanimous, it was 

negated after the Civil War by the 13th and 14th amendments to the 

Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared that formerly enslaved 

people were citizens. Nevertheless, the Dred Scott decision 

shows how court rulings, duly-enacted laws, or majority decisions approving 

actions does not make those actions moral or just. The Court 

may have hoped that its declaration of legality would settle the question 

of slavery’s morality, but it only pushed the nation closer to civil war 

as those in free states were forced to support an evil institution. As St. 

Augustine said, “an unjust law is no law at all.” 20 

What do the legality and morality of slavery have to do with abortion? 

In 1973, the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade forced states to 

allow abortion. The Supreme Court went through the same two steps 

[T]he Dred 

Scott decision 

shows how 

court rulings, 

duly-enacted 

laws, or majority 

decisions 

approving 

actions does 

not make those 

actions moral or 

just. 


297

as the First Virginia Statute and the Dred Scott v. Sanford decisions (as 

well as other legalizations of genocide and slavery outside the United 

States) to legalize the killing of preborn human beings. First, they relegated 

fetuses to non-person status, and then summarily ignored their 

inalienable rights, narrowing the issue to their legal rights (according to 

the Constitution) alone. How did the Court justify these actions? 

First, the Court acknowledged that if conception were established 

as the moment at which a new human life begins, the rights of the preborn 

would override the claimed privacy rights of the mother to terminate 

her pregnancy: 

Some of the argument for this justification rests on the 

theory that a new human life is present from the moment 

of conception. The State’s interest and general 

obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to 

prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother 

herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries 

within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus 

not prevail. 21 

The Court went on to admit that if it could be proved life began at 

conception, then,“the fetus’s right to life would then be guaranteed 

specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment” (Roe v. Wade, 1973). The 

Court, however, then attempted to undermine the contention that a 

new human life occurs at the moment of conception, not by appealing 

to scientific facts, but rather to disagreements and uncertainty within 

the medical and religious communities: 

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. 22 

Here the Court committed a major logical and ethical fallacy: it 

sanctioned the killing of preborn human beings on the basis of claimed 

uncertainty about the facts, which it admitted may be resolved in the 

future (“at this point in the development of man’s knowledge”). If one is 

not certain whether a being is human, we are not free to kill that being 

until we are certain that it is not human. If, for example, we are uncertain 

whether people with physical or mental challenges are human beings, 

we are not permitted to kill them because we are uncertain. The Nazis 

did exactly this. Similarly, if a hunter is uncertain whether the noise he 


© Magis Center

Abortion is not an inalienable 

right. 

The New-born by Georges de La Tour (ca. 1645–48). 

hears in the bush is a deer or a human being, he is not excused from responsibility 

if he shoots in ignorance and really does kill a human being. 

Uncertainty can never be an adequate reason for sanctioning killing. 

Furthermore, the Court claimed that in 1972 physicians were uncertain 

whether a new unique human life existed at the stage of a single-celled 

zygote. Since that time there has been repeated confirmation 

of the fact that a full, unique, specifically human genome is present 

at the moment of conception. Based on this point alone, the Supreme 

Court should have reversed its decision (based on its uncertainty) in 

1977 when scientific evidence established that a single-celled zygote is, 

in fact, a substantially whole human being. 


299

Though 

governments 

are bound by 

the inalienable 

rights of human 

beings and 

the principles 

of justice, the 

citizens must 

ensure that their 

governments 

are truly just 

and good to all 

human beings. 

Ultimately, The Roe vs. Wade decision was as grievous a violation of 

human rights and justice as the Dred Scott vs. Sanford decision. 

As the fathers of our Church and our country recognized, justice 

cannot be placed into the hands of the government alone. Though governments 

(the executive, legislative, and judicial branches) are bound 

by the inalienable rights of human beings and the principles of justice, 

the citizens must ensure that their governments are truly just and good 

to all human beings. 

Justice is dependent on you — not simply the halls or congress or 

courts of the land. Over 350,000 Northerners died in a war to end slavery, 

but smaller acts of justice were also significant. Think of Harriet 

Tubman and all those who helped enslaved people escape to free 

states, abolitionist writers like Frederick Douglass and Harriett Beecher 

Stowe who challenged the nation’s conscience, and ordinary people on 

juries that refused to enforce the unjust Fugitive Slave Act. 

Roe has been overturned, and so now the battle lines have been 

redrawn at the states. In many states today, preborn children have been 

falsely legally disenfranchised, stripped of legal protections, and had 

gross injustice inflicted upon them based on false facts, false reasoning, 

and negation of their inalienable human rights. If something is outrageous, 

challenge it. If something is unjust, rectify it. If whole populations 

of people are being persecuted, do everything you can to help. Do this 

out of your conscience — your sense of justice and your appreciation of 

the intrinsic dignity and goodness of every human being. 


© Magis Center

CMW-WB-CH13

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?