And now a reading from one of the central religious

scriptures of our time. I'm talking of course about Justice Harry Blackman's majority decision

in Roe v. Wade.

Obviously I am being a little sardonic here when I call Roe v. Wade a scripture,

but I'm not speaking completely out of my hat here. One of the things that we have been arguing in

this series on the history of natural law and natural right is that when you take away the explicit

religious justification for rights like rights to life liberty in the pursuit of happiness,

when you take that away, you start to speak gibberish and the specific kind of gibberish that

you start to speak is you start to use words that are expressly religious without any expressly

religious content. Let me explain remind you a little bit what I mean by this. This came up when

we were talking about the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, right? That all of the words

that are being used to justify things like human rights in our kind of modern international

law and rhetoric, all of those words have a structure that points toward divinity, right?

You have things like we are endowed with rights, well endowed by whom? We are a brotherhood of man.

Well, if we're brothers, if we're all brothers and sisters, then who's our father, right?

And what I've been trying to show you over the past three weeks now, I think this is probably

going to be the last in our series on rights. We've been moving, you know, starting in Genesis

and moving all the way up to the present day to kind of ask this question, why is it that

things that we currently do in the name of rights like, for example, mass abortion? Why do they

become so horrific? And so obviously in violation of higher goods and of natural law when they

when they are supposed to be coming from natural law, right? So that's been the question throughout.

I've been showing you arguing to you that you can't just pull the rug out from underneath this

...