[Aquinasfan]

I would rather change the law the in correct way, than to have judges change the law according to their whims

An unborn baby in its mother's womb is a human being. That's a fact, not a judge's "whim." A law that regards an unborn baby as less than human is an unjust law, which is to say, no law at all.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

An unborn baby in its mother's womb is a human being. That's a fact, not a judge's "whim." A law that regards an unborn baby as less than human is an unjust law, which is to say, no law at all.

There is no law saying unborn children are not human. Roe vs. Wade removed the penal destraint on performing abortions in the name of a misguided liberty, it did not say unborn children are not human, nor is it a law.

In reality, most laws criminalizing abortion are still on the books. They are simply unenforceable until such time as the Supreme Court rejects the judicial legislating in Roe v. Wade.

[r9etb]

An unborn baby in its mother's womb is a human being. That's a fact, not a judge's "whim." A law that regards an unborn baby as less than human is an unjust law, which is to say, no law at all.

Gosh. I hadn't ever thought of that before..... /sarc

Here in the real world, though, abortion is permitted because the whims of judges made it so. It is indeed an atrocity and should be stopped.

However, we should not fight the atrocity by demanding that judges exercise their whims in the opposite direction. When we replace "rule of law" with "whim of judge," the net results are almost guaranteed to be bad.