Genesis and Roe v. Wade speak from radically different moral worlds. One begins with God speaking life into being. The other begins with the autonomous individual asserting control over the body. The distance between them is not merely legal or historical. It is philosophical, theological, and moral. Genesis frames human life as sacred from its origin. Roe frames pregnancy as a private condition subject to choice. These starting points collide, and the collision is fundamental.
In Genesis, life is not accidental. It is intentional. Creation unfolds by divine command, and humanity is formed deliberately, bearing the image of God. Human life is therefore not a possession but a gift. The value of life does not depend on size, development, independence, or consent. It rests on divine authorship. From the opening chapters, life is treated as something to be protected, stewarded, and revered, not negotiated or weighed against convenience.
Roe v. Wade operates from a different assumption. It treats the unborn as legally invisible for much of pregnancy and centers moral authority in individual autonomy. The decision places choice above inherent worth and privacy above objective moral limits. Where Genesis asks what God has made, Roe asks what the individual wants. This shift is decisive. Once moral authority moves inward, life becomes conditional. Its protection depends on desire, timing, and circumstance.
Genesis presents humans as accountable beings. Actions involving life carry moral weight beyond personal preference. Cain’s crime is not wrong because it violates Cain’s freedom, but because it destroys a life God created. The narrative assumes that taking innocent life is an offense against God himself. This moral structure leaves little room for redefining when life becomes valuable. Value is assumed from the beginning.
Roe v. Wade dissolves that structure. It reframes abortion as a medical procedure rather than a moral act. By doing so, it detaches choice from consequence. The unborn is reduced to potential rather than presence. Genesis never uses such language. Potentiality is irrelevant when God is the source. What God creates already matters. There is no neutral ground where life can be suspended until it earns recognition.
The contradiction also appears in how both views understand power. In Genesis, power over life belongs to God. Humans exercise stewardship, not ownership. Limits are built into that stewardship. In Roe, power is transferred to the individual. The body becomes sovereign territory. But sovereignty without moral boundaries quickly becomes domination. When one life’s freedom depends on another life’s silence, the logic of Genesis has been abandoned.
Ultimately, Genesis and Roe v. Wade tell different stories about what it means to be human. Genesis says humans are created, known, and accountable. Roe suggests humans are self-defining and self-authorizing. These stories cannot be reconciled. One treats life as sacred from its first moment. The other treats life as negotiable until it crosses a legal threshold. The contradiction is total. Where Genesis begins with reverence, Roe begins with choice, and from that difference flows everything else.
Komentar Terbaru