Moral obligations are reliable and trustworthy only if they are founded on unalterable divine decrees or divine will. To establish as a criterion of public morality any notional whim that involves decision based on a personal preference or partiality; a decision that entails excludability of the rights of the voiceless and defenseless is to open the gateway to oppression of functionalism and all kinds of murderous inanities. The faithful standard of an enlightened, humanized society and government is the unswerving protection of the innocent and defenseless. To be effective, leaders must unreservedly obey divine - unchangeable commands, for only then, they can procure civic and political trustworthiness. The right to life, exemplarily, is a pre-eminent right that is of inestimable importance, without which drafting and formulating other rights is ridiculously illogical and self-contradictory. It is based on grave mental dishonesty, rendering the entire system of proposed laws to a substantial extent dubitable - lacking cohesion, connection or harmony. Law, which does not respect the right to life is woefully irreverent toward what is eternally held sacred, and as such, it comes to be a serious disintegrator, reducing the whole system of laws and its alleged soundness to fragments of rules that are lacking integrity and meaningfulness, and those who do not oppose law of this type reveal mindless dependence, self-complacent ignorance and inhumanity. English essayist, Joseph Addison relates that, "No oppression is so heavy or lasting as that which is inflicted by the perversion and exorbitance of legal authority." For justice in order to be sensible ought to uphold what is right in conformity not to any mutable human opinion - not to vagaries of human viewpoints and preference, but be in conformity to Immutable Truth, that is, in congruity to the changeless laws of virtue, fairness or equity. Thus, "the hero of conservatives" Scalia reaffirmed that sadly, the evil of abortion is now "held to be a constitutional right what had been a criminal offense at the time of founding and for nearly 200 years thereafter."
The existing human rights have been not only created by fallible minds, but rights are always related to other rights and their conceptualizations. If related rights are not clearly, fully or adequately conceptually construed, then the right in question - the statements conveying the fundamental character of this right is also incorrectly defined. If for instance, the concept of freedom is defined incorrectly, then the rights related to exercising that freedom will be also fallaciously defined; they become misleading and deceptive without the idea of freedom based on Immutable Truth (Immutable Love), that is, based on divinely defined ordinances. Indeed, "We are all bound to the throne of the Supreme Being by a flexible chain which restrains without enslaving us. The most wonderful aspect of the universal scheme of things is the action of free beings under divine guidance," (Joseph de Maistre, Constitution of France).
How can the modern-day rights for the person being in existence be seriously and trustworthily taken when the law has failed to acknowledge the right to even be in existence? What a gravely aberrant dialectic this is! Rights are secondary and relative to moral requirements, to duties or obligations (e.g. Simone Weil), and the prime task of any law is the promotability of order and moral values in society. Within the context of those associative applications, the "right to choose" is ignoratio elenchi - fatal in its consequences sophism; it results from fallacious and deceptive reasoning. Simone Weil pointedly reaffirmed that the notion of rights should be substituted by the concept of obligations, since rights are not only abundant to excess and spread without let or hindrance, but are also always related to conditions while obligations are invariably independent, uncontrolled or uninfluenced by any set of terms, conditions or any state of being.
The founding fathers who established the fundamental system of law created the existing social and political confusional state of affairs by setting forth the notion of rights, yet at the same time, they wished to make claims to absolute principles. Absolute principles indwell the territory stationed superior to existing conditions determined by human reasoning or qualifications - they are above the human realm. Rights will be not only less or more defective depending on specific cases or circumstances but are also self-referential and can be solely self-serving. Right means an entitlement; a claim; a demand for one's due; it means to deserve something. In other words, pro-choice means demanding death for the unborn child as being rightful or due; it means the child deserves to die so that the unconsenting procreators can live as they desire. What constitutes the value of any moral action however, is not what one can have only for oneself. Duty was given as a safeguard for obtaining the nobility of self-sacrifice or self-abnegation, so that a human being can by the attainment of a virtuous life annihilate the self, that is, the false self (as opposed to true self, which is found only in closest intimacy with Truth and Love, that is, God) (e.g. St. John of the Cross, Simone Weil). Only the Immutable/Absolute Truth speaks of, and addresses fully the most substantive recesses of the human soul. In order to secure the claims to just laws, the founders of the Constitution needed to abandon the idea of rights in favor of obligations, since again, obligations are permanent, universal and unconditioned; they are "coextensive with eternal destiny." The certitude that a human being possesses an eternal destiny necessitates the obligation of deference or due respect for the uniqueness and irreplaceableness of each human life from the very first moment of its incipient preborn existence.
To affirm again, being right is invariably indissoluble with an unreserved surrender to the providential order and design. For by pretermitting the Immutable/Perfect Truth, there is largely no possibility of obtainment of any truths; that is, by invalidating the divine authority in the matters of faith and morality, humankind for the large part is in consequence invalidating its legality and authority. Separation between civic or political organizations and religious realities constitutes accordingly an intellective and spiritual slipperiness of the worst kind; "it is a crime" (e.g. Simone Weil); has, as she rightly further reasserts, the very semblance of the place of the damned. Separation of Church and State is a paralogistic fancy, and if unbendingly accepted, it is by degrees diminutional even to the degraded - human good, and as such, it results not infrequently at the end in hardship, irremissible criminality and privation. Through the repudiation of supernatural truths, the administration of sensible justice becomes a concept that for the large part, resides only in one's imagination since, those who themselves are polluted by evil are having the authority of affecting or resolving others' lot that often is unspeakably worse than physical death, for it may damage irrevocably someone else's soul. Inescapably, a person is masquerading as being "intellectually honest" when compassion or mercy, which is superior to, and always inseparable from reason, is insufficient or lacking. The vital objective of procuring some sense of intellective honesty and integrity in predominantly or restrictively secular institutions is unrealizable; the institutional authenticity (the trustworthiness of the operation of any institution) or the hope for conceptive integral congruity and consistency in a given establishment remain largely unfounded, on the account of the false supposition of "Church and State separability." To ensure soundness and dependability in the proposed policies and administrations, human beings cannot sever the tie with the reliable and unfailing - eternal Truth but be exclusively guided by that Truth. For only then, can humankind be redeemed from existing legal unsoundness, as well as, criminal errors and pluralism inhabiting the human mind.