In part 1, our purpose was to establish that a judge must protect the innocent, and that for a judge to consign an innocent unborn baby, having committed no crime, to death, is wickedness.
When a judge renders a decision, though, he is expected to give his legal reasoning as to how he came to that decision.
What legal reasoning might a God-fearing judge use when rendering a decision to protect an innocent unborn child from death, particularly when the relevant laws seem to leave him without options?
The crux of it is: in God’s eyes, and therefore in fact, the little baby is a person (see numerous passages of Scripture).
And as our own Declaration of Independence says,
…that all men (persons) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life…
And our 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The 14th amendment speaks specifically of born persons, not unborn persons; but the groundwork is there, and if I were a judge and this type of case came to me, I think the strongest case to be made comes from the unborn child’s personhood. If there is a stronger case to be made than that the little one we’re contemplating killing is a person deserving of the full protection of the law, what is it?