Row Vs. Wade

As I have said before, interpretation is directly related to the cultural biases of the society we are in. Because a democracy is operated by popular government, we must take the time to look at the state of our culture before we try to interpret the laws of the past. Much like a holy-man trying to interpret a Scripture, which was written generations before him, an interpretation of law must take into account the culture of the time it was written. Today the American culture has lost it's sense of independence, do to an overwhelming dependency on the Federal Government for bail outs. There was a time that Americans would never take a handout from any one. But in today's America you can't turn on a television, with out seeing an advertisement for some attorney who promises to win your disability case. And recently the Obamanation has endorsed abortion as a valid form of birth control, allowing American women to have a get out of jail free card, for their infidelity. That is not to say that the Man does not play an equal roll, but the final say, with the only exception being cases of rape, ultimately falls of the woman. Such an endorsement world not have been socially acceptable if not fort the politically correct law, known as the Equal Rights Amendment.

Any theologian or cultural anthropologist, who has studied the after math of the most destructive law in American history can tell you that after the ERA was passed, cases of social cancers such as divorce, abortion, and rape grew in number. In one infamous case know as Row verses Wade, the Federal Supreme Court knowingly violated the Constitution's separation of church and state. Because of the religious implications of the abortion, the government involvement became a constitutional violation. But why are we surprised, for the courts in America are moved more by politics rather than justice. That's right, it was politics that rendered that famous verdict that has sparked so many debates.

What was the verdict based on? Well one of the pro-choice arguments that we have probably all heard, is, “we don't know when life enters the fetus.” Well I think it is time to examine this argument from just a common sense point of view. No one denies that a parasite is a life, independent from it's host. After all we have millions of social parasites in America, we call them Democrats. In fact billions of dollars are spent every year to fight off parasitic infections in America. One can even argue that the advocates of pro-choice look at the fetus of an unborn human child as an infection, although not one of them would admit it, their actions say it for them. Why hasn't the Supreme Court ever addressed the fact that “life” is defined by: “the ability to consume to grow into something more than the objects present state” (Aristotle). Therefore, by definition, the human fetus is living in the form of a parasite from the point of conception. Unfortunately too many humans never progress beyond that of the parasitic state. However, the pro-choice argument that, “we don't know when life enters the fetus,” has been completely busted.

So why would the Court render the verdict that they did? Could it be that the Federal Supreme Court tends to forget about their oath to up hold the Constitution and its values in favor of popular law? President George Washington once told Congress that, “the Constitution is the most important document that I can have you sign, but it is only keepers are the people who vow to up hold it.” You see in 1972 the Supreme Court was feeling presser from all sides about the coming verdict of one of the most controversial cases in the history of American jurisprudence. If the Court would have up held the Constitution and said, we can not render a verdict on the case that would become know as Row Verses Wade do to the inherent religious implications, it was possible that they would have been removed from the bench. To prevent something like this from happening, the Founding Fathers, gave the Judaical and Administrative branches, separate but equal power. However, the Constitution is overridden by politics, in a democracy. Which is why, “every state shall be guarantied a Republican form of government” (Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution). For once those who are the, “only keepers,” of this sacred document no longer up hold its content there is nothing left to protect the people from their greatest enemy, themselves.

The constitutional concept of a separation of Church and State was meant to be observed by both the church and the government where in. However, the federal government seems to think that the door only swings one way. In our public schools, any time an Atheist starts to squawk about God in the class room, the ruling will go toward the Atheist. Yet by getting involved at all, the government is in violation of a separation of Church and State. So why would the government come to the aid of the Atheist. Could it be because by imposing the separation over 75% of the child's education is compromised?

Own children don't say the pledge of allegiance any more. For the Atheist it is because of the words “one nation under God,” at the end of it. But to an anthropologist who has studied human culture all of his adult life, there is a much bigger issue at hand. You see the pledge is a vow to protect the, “Republic for which it [the flag] stands” (The Pledge of Allegiance), which is something an emerging socialist society would not want our children to learn. Our schools have proven that they have no desire to educate our children. Think about it, by trying to take God or the study of religion out of schools, we are depriving our children of classic literature, the Arts, and even the study of our worlds cultures . But we should not be too surprised, after all our government tends to think of the human fetus as a parasitic infection.