The Astonishing Revelation: How Genesis Contradicts Roe v Wade
When it comes to the debate of abortion, there have always been two sides: pro-life and pro-choice. The pro-life side argues that life begins at conception and that all human beings, regardless of their stage of development, have the right to life. On the other hand, the pro-choice side argues that women have the right to choose what they do with their bodies, even if it means terminating a pregnancy.
One of the most significant cases that support the pro-choice side is the landmark decision of Roe v Wade, which was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1973. However, did you know that this decision contradicts the creation story in Genesis? In this article, we will explore how the book of Genesis contradicts Roe v Wade and why it’s essential to understand this contradiction.
First, let’s take a closer look at the decision of Roe v Wade. In short, the case made it legal for women in the United States to obtain an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. The decision was based on the argument that a woman has the right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment and that this right extends to her decision to have an abortion. The court also ruled that a fetus is not a person and, therefore, does not have constitutional rights.
However, the book of Genesis tells a different story. Genesis 1:27-28 tells us that God created man (represented by Adam) in his image and likeness and gave him dominion over all the animals on the Earth. In Genesis 2:7, God breathed life into Adam, and he became a living being. This passage suggests that life begins at the moment of creation and that humans have a special place in the world because they reflect the image of God.
Moreover, Genesis 9:6 states that anyone who sheds human blood, including that of an unborn child, shall be put to death. This passage suggests that human life is valuable and should be protected, even in the womb.
The contradiction between Roe v Wade and the book of Genesis is apparent. While Roe v Wade suggests that a fetus is not a person and, therefore, does not have constitutional rights, Genesis suggests that human life begins at conception and should be protected. This contradiction raises some important questions that we should consider.
First, if we believe that human life begins at conception, why do we allow abortions to take place? Is it reasonable to consider an abortion as merely removing a clump of cells from a woman’s body when that clump of cells has the potential to become a human being?
Second, if we believe that human life begins at conception, how can we justify the practice of embryonic stem cell research? Embryonic stem cell research involves the use of embryos that are a few days old and have the potential to develop into human beings. Is it ethical to use these embryos for scientific research when they have the potential to become people?
Finally, if we believe that human life begins at conception, how can we justify the use of birth control methods that have the potential to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg? Is it ethical to use a birth control method that could prevent a human life from developing?
These are challenging questions that require careful consideration. By understanding the contradiction between Roe v Wade and the book of Genesis, we can begin to explore these questions and develop a more comprehensive understanding of the value of human life.
In conclusion, the landmark decision of Roe v Wade has been a significant factor in the ongoing debate about abortion. However, the book of Genesis contradicts this decision by suggesting that human life begins at conception and should be protected. This contradiction raises important questions that we should consider, such as the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and the use of birth control methods that could prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. By understanding this contradiction, we can develop a more comprehensive understanding of the value of human life and begin to explore these questions more deeply.