The violation of inalienable rights, in addition to its moral significance, had such practical legal importance that the justification for the American Revolution was dependent upon it. In the Declaration of Independence the statement that men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights follows directly on the pronouncement that all men are equal by virtue of their human nature and their common creation. No man, woman or child has more claim to the right to life than any other man, woman or child, since all possess the same human nature. Thus, the possession of a human nature automatically guarantees the inalienable right to life. If not yet by birth, then, the preborn child most certainly possesses a human nature by its origin and constitution in the event and at the moment of fertilization.
Embryologists agree that man is created when sperm and egg unite at the moment of fertilization.
This is the completed act of creation, and development of the preborn child from this moment on is a matter of maturation only. Viability, therefore, is not a prerequisite for the inalienable right to life. Furthermore, any agreement which relinquishes this right before natural death is invalid because the human possesses a human nature up to death, a human nature to which the inalienable right to life is inextricably bound and not assignable. If the authors of the Constitution had included a written statement of the Declaration of Independence, with perhaps an explanation of its concept of inalienable rights, it would have been impossible for the Supreme Court to make its colossal ROE V. WADE blunder. In other words, it was unthinkable to the Founding Fathers that these principles needed restating in the Constitution of their new nation, since it was on these principles that America's very creation was wholly justified.