St. John the Evangelist - Ancient Faith, Modern Relevance

Ladies and gentlemen, I would venture to say that the topic at hand is as emotional as any that has affected our national conscience. Perhaps only slavery and especially the infamous Dred Scott decision can compare. That Supreme Court decision found that “A free negro of the African race … is not a ‘citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.”1

That statement appears to be about citizenship, but it is actually a statement about personhood. The Justice who penned the Court’s opinion reminded his readers that black men have always been considered “beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race … and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”2

Today, those are truly shocking words in our ears – at least, I hope that they are. And as much as an objective observer may have to admit that the finding of the court was good law, few would argue that it was good ethics.

We know that the courts of our day have explicitly stated that “the word ‘person’ … does not include the unborn.”3 In the words of Dred Scott, pre-born children have been declared “beings of an inferior order … and so far inferior that they have no rights which the adult is bound to respect.”

I don’t know if this was good law. But in the analogy of Dred Scott, we consider Roe v Wade bad ethics. Contrary to the courts of this land, we hold that these people – unseen by us, without a voice, but nevertheless people – must be considered to have been “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” among which is numbered “life”.

For us, this is a gut level, in-your-face matter of life and death. It’s not simply about statistics concerning psychological or physiological damage, nor a slippery slope leading to euthanasia, nor about unwanted children, nor about adoption – as important as these things certainly are!

For us, it is about a human being in her mother’s womb, struggling to avoid the curette and suction tube of the doctor, as has clearly been revealed in ultrasound filmography. It’s about a person’s fight to survive against all odds – and usually loosing that fight.

This hospital saved the life of my son last October, after a serious car accident. Your excellent science and staff not only kept him alive, but also helped him to regain his full faculties in a very short time. That same science and staff has increased viability to something near 23 weeks, as I understand it.

How can a hospital that is so committed to and skilled at preserving life also have a hand in purposely destroying it?4

If all the stuff of human-ness and personality are present at conception, then for us, it’s about a human being, a living person, a body and a soul, a mind, a future, a place, and a purpose. Statistical or legal nuance just don’t seem to weigh quite as much as the issue of life itself, don’t you agree?

Let me ask you a question: if your own heart reacted negatively to an 1857 finding of the Supreme Court stating that black men and women are of an inferior order, then I’m curious to know what your heart is telling you now about unborn men and women?

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark E. Rudolph, Rector
St. John the Evangelist Anglican Church

1. 1. Section 1, Para 4. of Supreme Court of the United States, 60 U.S. 393 (How.), DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD. Argued : February 11 – 14, 1856, February 15 – 18, 1856 — Decided : March 6, 1857). Note that the Constitution, Art IV, Section 2 read: “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” Superseded by the 13th amendment. Source: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford.
2. 2. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Opinion_of_the_Cour…
3. 3. ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), Section IX, Subsection A, Para 3.
4. 4. Consider an analogy. Two friends are walking down the street and they hear blood-curdling screams from a nearby home.
   At that point, the two friends could enter into a debate about trespassing on private property, or the right of personal privacy in this circumstance, or the propriety of interfering in the actions of another and imposing one’s personal moral judgment on another person. All of those topics pertain to the situation.
   But as the screams continue and the matter sounds increasingly dire, one consideration overrules all others: a person is being harmed or killed! Save a life now and discuss law later! Protect the weaker against the stronger! Worry about the legal consequences, philosophical consequences, perhaps even the physical consequences for us personally – that comes later! And in many contexts, we would even call it bravery and heroism.