| RELIGION, GOVERNMENT & THE PEOPLE | CREATION V. EVOLUTION | ABORTION |
| EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH JIM ARGUE OF ARKANSAS STATE LEGISLATURE |
Time Renders A Court Case Moot?
Women's advocacy groups consider abortion one of the fundamental rights of a woman to control her body as she wishes (F1), and with that right, the absolute right of doctor/patient confidentiality. That was the argument of groups such as the National Organization for Women when the landmark trial of Roe v. Wade was heard in the United States Supreme Court. Other groups, like the National Abortion Rights Action League or NARAL claim that the ruling of Roe v. Wade, "held that a woman has the right to choose abortion until fetal viability -- the time at which it first becomes realistically possible for a fetus to live outside the woman's body -- but that the state's interest in the matter outweighs the woman's right after that point". Accordingly, Roe held that, after viability, "states may ban any abortions as they see fit, long as exceptions are made to protect the life and health of the woman." (F2)
I might also state here for those of you who would like to make the case for abortion, and a woman's right to choose, based on law and law alone, with no moral fortitude withstanding, that the argument is upheld in Roe v. Wade by Justice Blackmun that the viability of life of the unborn can be hinged on it's survival ability based on either "natural or artificial means." (F3) Although this is not to say that the unborn of today are developing any quicker than those of the early 1970's, but rather vast strides have been made in the medical field in relation to "fetal viability" and their ability to attend to pre-mature births (F4) and the direct contrast it has on a court case that is over a quarter-century old, not to say that time renders a court case moot, quite the contrary, instead to say that this particular case should be kept up to date and in step with the laws of the land.
To use a quote that was used by the National Organization for Women to uphold and propel the case of Roe v. Wade to fit modern day principle in the early days of the 1970's as the case was being heard by the United States Supreme Court, their argument was very similar to the following statement:
(F13)
That was basically the same argument used by NOW when Roe v. Wade and the abortion issue was presented to the Supreme Court in the early 1970's.
Early Historical Views and The Hippocratic Oath
At the same time in all this debate, history of earlier civilizations was reviewed and taken into account so as to be some sort of established guideline to follow to determine our own destiny. Justice Blackmun noted when reviewing Greek and Roman law that abortion was practiced freely, with no regard to the unborn, however if abortion was prosecuted during the age of the Roman Empire, the basis for doing so was based on the denial of the "father's rights to his own offspring."
Then there was the great Greek of the medical field known as "Hippocrates," who is often referred to as "The Father of Medicine." One of Hippocrates' great achievements of his day was in writing and formulating the famous "Hippocratic Oath" which set as a standard, a set of ethical principles for which future medical practitioners were to look to as a guiding set of standards in the medical field. This Oath set forward strict guidelines, which dealt specifically with the issues of life and death matters. Among them were matters that dealt with the unborn, and basically gave these words of promise of a chance to life outside the womb to the unborn children of that day. In doing so, he knew he was going against the status quo of the Roman Empire and popular culture of that time. Still, he felt the need for medicine to protect life instead of destroy it, to uphold the potential for life, instead of redefining the terms and assigning meaningless terminology to the stages of the unborn life in order to justify ending it.
Hippocrates has been long reveled as "the wisest and greatest practitioner of the art." All medical professionals once held the Hippocratic Oath in high respect in the medical field, and it states a clear-cut opinion on abortion, or abortive procedures:
However the Pythagoreans had a very different take on the matter of an unborn child's life, they considered the fertilized egg as a living being, and that abortion itself was considered the destruction of a living being. This belief fell more in line with Christian teaching and belief that began to emerge soon after, and the Hippocratic Oath came to be accepted as the "nucleus of all medical ethics" and "was applauded as the embodiment of truth."
Common law established that abortions performed before quickening (fetal movement in the womb), which was set at around the sixteenth to the eighteenth week of pregnancy, was not an indictable offense. The definition of movement of the unborn was set as one of the two first principles of life. This was echoed by later common-law scholars and found its way into the received common law in this country. Although some legal experts of the time thought it a great crime to abort a quick fetus, as one bad enough to inflict the penalty of homicide, some viewed it with a lesser charge of a simple misdemeanor.
England's first criminal abortion statute came in 1803; it made the abortion of a quick fetus a capital crime, but provided lesser charges for abortions performed before quickening, thus preserving the "quickening decision." This came to be known as Lord Ellenborough's Act. Then in 1939, a court case was heard and the law was revised to permit abortion in order to save the life of the mother.
In the United States, the law in effect in all but a few States until the mid-nineteenth century was the pre-existing English common law. Connecticut, was the first state to enact abortion legislation. In 1821 it adopted the part of Lord Ellenborough's Act that related to a woman "quick with child." New York enacted legislation that, in two respects, was to serve as a model for early anti-abortion statutes. First, while barring destruction of an unquickened fetus as well as a quick fetus, the former was considered only a misdemeanor, while the second was considered second-degree manslaughter. It also excused abortion if it "shall have been necessary for such purpose." By the end of the 1950's, a large majority of the jurisdictions banned abortions, unless done to protect the life of the mother.
In 1857 the American Medical Association's Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed. The committee deplored abortion and listed three root causes that attributed to the public's general demoralization in regard to the unborn child.
Listed, as the first of these causes was the widespread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime, in which stood the belief, even among mothers themselves that the fetus is not alive till after "quickening."
Second on the list was the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of fetal life...
Thirdly, the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas.
Transcript of the American Medical Assn. (1859)
In 1871, the Committee on Criminal Abortion issued a report. In that report was some strong language concerning the issue of abortion and the terminology used to describe the developing and unborn child:
Transcript of the American Medical Assn. (1871)
Many people today in our society, even those well known to the Public, and many of those in the medical field holds the viewpoint that the right of the woman to "choose" supercedes all, but that is in direct conflict with the attitude of the late Nineteenth century conclusion of the American Medical Association's Committee on Criminal Abortion and their take on "potential" human life. It was recommended in their transcript that it "be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion or premature labor, without the concurrent opinion of at least one respectable consulting physician, and then always with a view to the safety of the child - if that be possible," and calling "the attention of the clergy of all denominations to the perverted views of morality entertained by a large class of females - aye, and men also, on this important question."
Except for the periodic condemnation of the criminal abortionist, no further formal AMA action took place until 1967, then the Committee on Human Reproduction urged the adoption of a stated policy of opposition to induced abortion, except when there is "documented medical evidence" of a threat to the health or life of the mother, or that the child "may be born with incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency," or that the pregnancy "resulting from legally established statutory or forcible rape or incest may constitute a threat to the mental or physical health of the [410 U.S.113, 143] patient," after being examined by "two competent physicians and signed in writing, and the procedure is performed in a hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals." The House of Delegates of the AMA adopted this recommendation in June 1967.
In the days when Roe v. Wade was being argued before the Supreme Court, there were laws on the books in the state of Texas that dealt with protecting the unborn child from harm that could cause it's termination. One of them was listed in Footnote One of the Roe v. Wade court case, and has to do with clarifying Texas law as it was being discussed in the court case to decide which law was considered "vague" and "over broadly infringing" on the plaintiff's rights. One particular law, which was not attacked in the case, had to do specifically with the subject of "Destroying unborn child", Article 1195 of Texas Penal Code, and read as follows:
Texas Penal Code, Article 1195
Therefore, could we not argue then that according to the basis for Roe v. Wade, there was still the need to keep in place law that protected the fetus in "post-viability" status, yet still unborn, because that law was not attacked in Roe v. Wade?" That is to say that any child having the capability to survive after the supposed "viable life state" by "natural or artificial means" has every right to personhood according to this statute of Texas law, upheld by the United States Supreme Court, and not contested in this case of Roe v. Wade by the Plaintiffs or the Court as being "vague or over broadly infringing" on ones rights.
It was pointed out in Roe v. Wade that the Court did not agree with the arguments that the woman's right was 1) "absolute" and 2) "that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses."
The Court also claimed the "State indeed had important interests" when it came to "safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life." The Court determined through these conclusions that there had to be some kind of control over the factors that govern the abortion decision. The United States Supreme Court in the outset of Roe v. Wade adopted the trimester timetable in order to afford them some kind of way to visually deal with setting parameters on viability, the right of states to intervene on behalf of the unborn so as to be able to proscribe abortion if the State saw there was a need to do so in order to protect the rights of the unborn, yet viable, life inside the mother. (F7)
One major right that arguers like to bring to the table on behalf of women's rights is the one of "the right of a woman to do with her body as she chooses." The United States Supreme Court addressed that issue with two court cases, one concerning vaccination, and the other concerning sterilization. The Court went on to say that this right to abortion was not absolute, and ought to have limitations, just as the previous court cases mentioned were found to be. It also held that the State had "important interests in legislation" concerning the matter of abortion.
Now, do these factors set forth in Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court of the United States extend to the laws of today in the effects of abortion on our society and the supposed case of the Texas statute 1195 that wasn't attacked in Roe, but was actually used to uphold the rights of the unborn to a certain degree in time of human gestation? Or has it been silently forgotten, as a footnote in history, even though it is a major part of the overall decision in the landmark Court case concerning abortion, known as Roe v. Wade?
On the matter of who decides which of our medical establishments or health institutions are given specific instructions on how or when to respect, or when they are to take steps necessary to see that they are "protecting potential life", most of the time depend upon the heads of the organizations themselves. Justice Harry Blackmun, who delivered the opinion of the Court in Roe v. Wade, made the assertion that;
"When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
(Section IV, Roe v. Wade)
Justice Blackmun just admitted in this point in the opinion of the Court that the Court doesn't know, or doesn't care to pinpoint the actual "beginning of human life." But the Court clearly leaves it up to man (gender-neutral) on when to decide to end it, even though man doesn't know it's "beginning", and in most cases, doesn't care.
These are direct excerpts from the opinion of the Court. Justice Blackmun is essentially admitting here that there is no reason to further investigate the scientific area or medical questioning in order to establish an understood postulate for the beginning of human life, so he makes a decision based on past history of how the unborn child has been viewed in past law, and also, how the unborn is viewed at present concerning Texas law, specifically, Article 1195 of the Texas code. It is often mentioned in Roe v. Wade the issue of "protecting potential life", but that is made little note of by abortion rights groups of today. There are further mentions made toward the issue of the importance of not overlooking the relevance of potential life in Roe v. Wade.
(Section VIII, Roe v. Wade)
(Section VIII, Roe v. Wade)
Many pro-abortion groups would consider a woman's right as one that is almost absolute, ordained by the Supreme Court in 1973 by the Roe v. Wade decision and it's sister case of Doe v. Bolton. But careful examination of the entire case reflects a different demeanor that the Court was placing on the issue of abortion, although granting the practice as legal, it did not necessarily leave it without certain restrictions. One of those restrictions was to safeguard the protection of potential life. In reviewing past court cases, the Supreme Court looked at several cases concerning the issue of abortion, and found that;
(Section VIII, Roe v. Wade)
Roe v. Wade set the stage in 1973 for fetal viability, even though they admitted earlier that they would not speculate "on when life began", rather they set a time frame in the period of human gestation that the fetus would become "viable." And this viability could be based on the ability to survive with the use of artificial support.
(Section IX, Roe v. Wade)
"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it (the State) may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."
(Section X, Roe v. Wade)
A Point For Thought...
How would the first scientist who performed the first successful test-tube baby have felt if someone had came into his laboratory and poured the contents down the drain, looked him in the eye and responded, "What, it was nothing, it wasn't alive, it wasn't viable. What did you expect, a real fetus?" After all, isn't that the argument of the pro-choice groups? It isn't a living human, until birth?
Justice Blackmun also made the statement that;
(Section IV, Roe v. Wade)
This statement was made when he was addressing the problem of pregnancy and an abortion trial being justiciable, yet evading review because of the shortness of the human gestational cycle. Therefore an injunctive relief order was declared, though not a declatory one. This leaves open a whole new area for judicial review on other matters brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. If our laws should be flexible for the subject of abortion, why should it not pertain to other court matters?
Many historians, legal scholars, and constitutional lawyers having a liberal bent would argue today that the constitution is a "living document", that as modern time and language changes, those changes directly affect the wording of a two-hundred plus year old document written with carefully chosen words and much debate on the precise language of said document. Would these same people of great intellect apply such liberal leaning toward the wording and decisiveness of Roe v. Wade? Because it was stated in Roe v. Wade that...............
A truly bold statement. One put forth by Justice Harry Blackmun on the issue of pregnancy and abortion and their acceptance into the halls of justice of the United States Supreme Court as a matter of being justiciable, yet "evading review" because of it's shortness in time. But what or who sets rigidity in our laws? Is it the President, the Congress, the Courts, the mood of the Country, how we feel from day to day as a Nation? I would think not. "Our law should not be that rigid." Where should our laws remain rigid, and where should they become flexible? That is almost an oxymoron, because laws are passed to mean exactly what they say, otherwise why write them? With the aspect and theories of a human court influencing their opinion and interpretation, and reading into the law what they want it to say, instead of reading from the wording of the law what the law is actually saying, our laws become fluid, and our governance unstable. If the letter of the law is not adhered to, virtually everything, every right is laid on the table and open for re-interpretation. Take the First and Second Amendments, which one provides for flexibility, which one remains, and becomes even more rigid as time goes by?
This brings up another subject that reared it's head in argument in Roe v. Wade, that is the one of what constitutes a "person" by definition of the Constitution of these United States. This argument has legitimate concerns, but for those who would view the First Amendment as an all inclusive article to include and protect anything and everything from actual speech to certain physical actions that require no speech or freedom of the press at all is almost clearly a blatantly defined approach to further one's own legislative agenda to liberalize society without societal input.
(Section IX, Roe v. Wade)
The Court is pointing out here that if "personhood" of the unborn is ever established, the abortion case would fall apart because the unborn would be protected by the Constitution. They go on to say that "no court case could be cited that held anyone liable for the death of a fetus or that gave the fetus the same rights as a "live" person as granted by the Fourteenth Amendment." But there are cases that have been held since then that has held criminals liable for the death of a fetus, because of the "possibility" of life. Even when that possibility was only a one or two percent chance in one hundred. Almost 25 states have laws permitting some kind of prosecution for the death of the unborn.
(Section IX, Roe v. Wade)
As stated before, the First Amendment uses the term speech very broadly, to include everything from actual speech to certain physical actions that require no speech or freedom of the press, to anti-Christian art that is displayed in government funded museums. This is all protected under the guise of "freedom of speech". Further excerpts:
"...it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly..."
(Section IX, Roe v. Wade)
This matter that the Court addressed here is that after a certain point the privacy issue established by the founding of this case on the Fourteenth Amendment at some point loses it's relevance as pertaining only to the woman, because the longer the pregnancy is allowed to progress, the more relevant the State's rights become in protecting potential human life, specifically after the point of viability set by this Court.
(Section IX, Roe v. Wade)
A Point For Thought...
So, we are so medically advanced now that we rely on medical transactions to achieve pregnancies as well as to terminate them? Would the scientific foundations across North America agree then with the argument that an egg laid by the Bald Eagle is not protected by the Endangered Species Act, because it by definition is not an actual Eagle, could we therefore go back to harvesting Eagle eggs, or would the proponents of the ESA revolt on our desecration of the "potential" Eagle population. After all, not every Eagle egg becomes an eaglet.
I think the next subject tells the story of a selfish humanity that cares more for their own agenda in societal advancement than it does for the rights of the unborn, even though Roe v. Wade upheld such ideology for the unborn...........
A Legality That Affords Doctor's The Right To Perform A Barbarous Act of Legalized Murder?
Just exactly what is a "partial-birth abortion?" Here again we have groups like NOW falling back to the original argument argued before the United States Supreme Court at the outset of Roe v. Wade, which was, "That the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses."
I open this subject with this line because there was a lot of argument placed in and around this ideology of liberalizing the abortion argument to the point of "abortion on demand". And even today many pro-abortion activists argue that if any anti-abortion legislation is passed in Congress, it is simply a step towards reversing Roe v. Wade. But let's carefully examine the practice of "partial-birth abortion," the procedures used to perform the operation of this type of abortion, of which abortion rights groups have accused anti-abortion groups of falsely naming to make it sound as though it were somehow mis-construed as a torturous act, and the time frame during pregnancy it is most usually performed. From there you can use your own judgment to see if it is an act of barbarianism, or an act of a duty bound physician just doing his/her job to fulfill the wishes of a wanting sect of the American Public who are entitled to their rights as dictated by law.
In the United States Supreme Court Case of Stenberg v. Carhart a partial-birth abortion is described as "an abortion procedure in which the person performing the abortion partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the unborn child and completing the delivery."
There are two types of so-called partial-birth abortion procedures widely used today. They are known as "D&E", and "D&X", both similar in practice, but differentiated by technicalities in the medical field.
Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortions are used after the first trimester of pregnancy and are used in unison with some of the same procedures and instruments, as are used in the first trimester, but naturally as time progresses, so does the fetus, and thus it's size, so between thirteen and fifteen weeks of gestation some alternative procedures must be administered to the patient.
--thirteen to fifteen weeks of fetal development--
· HEAD is now erect
· EYES face forward
· EARS very close to where they are supposed to be
· lower LIMBS well developed
· TOENAILS show signs of early development
These include induced cervical dilation, intravenous fluids, an analgesic or sedative, and the use of an anesthetic. Dilating agents, if used, are removed and the attending physician proceeds with the abortion. The abortion is performed through the cervix in utero and removal of fetal and placental "tissue" begins. Because fetal "tissue" is friable and easily broken, the fetus "may not be removed intact."
After fifteen weeks the fetus is of course larger at this stage in development, particularly the head, bones have became more rigid, therefore dismemberment or other destructive procedures are far more likely to be used to remove fetal and placental tissue.
--twenty weeks of fetal development--
· EARS stand out from head
· HAIR has formed on head
· EYES are open
· mother has FELT MOVEMENTS by now most likely
· considered a "VIABLE FETUS" within 20-22 weeks
After twenty weeks of pregnancy some doctors use intrafetal potassium chloride or digoxin to induce fetal death, essentially the use of either of the aforementioned drugs would likely cause the fetus to have a heart attack and die while still in the mother's womb.( F8) Dilation and Evacuation abortions do have variations in overall operative strategy, however, they do share some common points overall. These include dilation of the cervix, removal of some fetal tissue using nonvacuum instruments, and after the fifteenth week, because of the size of the unborn fetus, the need for instrumental dismemberment of the fetus and/or the collapse of fetal parts (usually the head) to permit removal of the fetus from the uterus.
When an instrument assisted D&E abortion takes place, the doctor physically has to dismember the fetus by pulling a portion of the fetus through the cervix and into the birth canal. The following is testimony from the United States Supreme Court Case of Stenberg v. Carhart(F9 ). The person testifying is Dr. Carhart, he is being questioned about the procedures of D&E and D&X abortions:
"Dr. Carhart: ‘The dismemberment occurs between the traction of … my instrument and the counter-traction of the internal os of the cervix … .
"Counsel: ‘So the dismemberment occurs after you pulled a part of the fetus through the cervix, is that correct?
"Dr. Carhart: ‘Exactly. Because you’re using-The cervix has two strictures or two rings, the internal os and the external os … that’s what’s actually doing the dismembering…
"Counsel: ‘When we talked before or talked before about a D&E, that is not-where there is not intention to do it intact, do you, in that situation, dismember the fetus in utero first, then remove portions?
"Dr. Carhart: ‘I don’t think so. … I don’t know of any way that one could go in and intentionally dismember the fetus in the uterus. … It takes something that restricts the motion of the fetus against what you’re doing before you’re going to get dismemberment.’ "
During the trial Dr. Carhart and Dr. Stubblefield described a variation of the D&E abortion procedure, which was referred to as "intact D&E." It begins like most other D&E abortions, but instead of dismemberment, it involves removing the fetus from the uterus through the cervix "intact," in one pass, rather than in several passes. It is used after sixteen weeks at the earliest, as vacuum aspiration becomes ineffective and the fetal skull becomes too large to pass through the cervix. This abortion procedure proceeds in one of two ways, depending on the presentation of the fetus. If the fetus presents itself head first, known as a vertex presentation, the doctor collapses the skull; if the fetus presents feet first, known as a breech position, the doctor pulls the fetal body through the cervix, collapses the skull, and then extracts the fetus, this is commonly known as D&X, or dilation and extraction abortion Another description of D&X abortion was described by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and describes the D&X procedure in a manner corresponding to a breech-conversion intact D&E, including the following steps:
-1. deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days;
-2. instrumental conversion of the fetus to a footling breech;
-3. breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and
-4. partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of a living fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus.
Despite the technical differences we have just described, intact D&E and D&X are sufficiently similar for us to use the terms interchangeably.
The decision was laid at the doorsteps of the United States Supreme Court to come up with a satisfactory answer to the question of what was a "viable life." The direct wording of "viable life" means having (viable) the capability of surviving outside the mother's womb without artificial support and (life) the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body. So in essence we have the meaning of viable life to be that of "a life capable of surviving outside the mother's womb distinguishable from a dead body." Science defines death as the "cessation of brain waves."(F10 ) Given the absolutes of the descriptions of both a viable life and of death, would it not stand to reason that the medical field is meddling awful close to "playing God" when it comes to the decision of whether an unborn "fetus" is deemed not "viable" before given that chance at viability according to the progress and knowledge of our medical doctors and nurses and the tools at their disposal. Still yet this "fetus" is considered not "a live person," even though brain waves are recordable, there is a measurable heartbeat, and a pulse, all which are separate and apart from that of the mother.
The United States Supreme Court even went a step further in describing what was considered "viable" at the time Roe v. Wade was handed down. The statement was made clear that either "natural or ARTIFICIAL means" was appropriate when being administered to sustain the life of a "viable" fetus. Roe set viability at six months, and gave doctors the opportunity to "proscribe" abortion after fetal viability. Where the argument is at today hinges upon the issue for the "rights" of the woman. The word "health" has taken on a whole new meaning since 1973, it now tends to include how someone might feel from one day to the next, it may be said that their being upset over not being able to pursue a job opportunity because of an unplanned pregnancy would directly affect one's "health". In fact the word health has risen to the point of circumventing the meaning of viable life, even when read from Roe v. Wade in the post era of abortion rights and twenty-eight years of liberalizing the aforementioned court case ruling. If an abortion does not destroy viable life, how then can the potential for implants be accessible from an aborted fetus?( F11) How can the advancing scientific introduction into stem-cell research bring forth new hopes for old ills in our society and our hospitals, without noticing that there was the formula for the potential of "viability"?( F12)
And how can we call ourselves human, and denounce Hitler's treatment of the Jews in World War II, or vow to stop the genocide in Kosovo, while here within our own shores, a very genocide is occurring as we fight for the rights of animals not to be used in the testing of certain products we as humans use everyday, because we see it as inhumane. We live in trees for the right of an old-growth forest not to be cut down, we strive for the last wilderness to remain untouched by human interaction, thus leaving the land and streams hospitable for the species of bears that are native to Alaska. All this and more, as an act of genocide is waged against our unborn. Do we put more fight toward saving the trees, bears, or salmon that inhabit our woodlands and streams than we do into saving potential human life? Have we become such a self-centered egotistical people that we can justify that somehow we are owed, through our "liberties", and a contorted look through our Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment of our Constitution our own "pursuit of happiness", for the right price through the guise of a medical license?
For correspondence please contact:
shadow13_72@yahoo.com
FOOTNOTE(1): "In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, (1927) ( sterilization)." Taken directly from Roe v. Wade, from the opinion of the Court delivered by Justice Harry Blackmun. Return to where I was.
FOOTNOTE(2): "We note that those federal and state courts that have recently considered abortion law challenges have reached the same conclusion. A majority, in addition to the District Court in the present case, have held state laws unconstitutional, at least in part, because of vagueness or because of overbreadth and abridgment of rights." (although the rights in question of the day of Roe v. Wade was those of the woman to abort her child, could that argument be made today against federal law, because some thirty or more states have in effect laws that give legal protection to the unborn in acts of aggression against the pregnant mother?) "and the Court further stated that the right to an abortion is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant." Return to where I was.
FOOTNOTE(3): "...upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live
