First, it is unquestionable that when the Declaration of Independence states that all men have the right to "life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," this right also extends to the unborn. The Supreme Court had no right to supercede state law in this Texas case, nor had they the right to determine when life begins.
Second, the entire legal philosophy is unconstitutional and does not even make sense. The Court based their ruling under the judicial-made philosophy of the right to privacy, which is a right that is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. The 4th Amendment protects us from illegal search and seizure, but the Founders did not include the absolute right to privacy for a reason; this would be a dangerous breeding ground for criminal activity and thwarted police investigations. Anway, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Griswold v. Connecticut, that this was a right that needed to be made up in order to supercede state contraceptive laws that were in place at the time. In making up this right to absolute privacy, this was the court's exact wording in the Griswold case: "The specific guarantees in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution have peaunumbras formed by emanations, which create zones of privacy." That is the most crazy legal wording I have ever heard, peaunumbras are basically the rays of light that come off the sun--that was their legal analogy, philosophy, and justification for making up this right to privacy when American citizens are already protected by Probable Cause and the 4th Amendment. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court used this same philosophy to make abortion constitutional and legal in all states.
You are correct, of course. Leaving morality aside, Roe V. Wade is just plain bad law. It should be overturned on legal principle alone.
Of course, abortion is morally indefensible and the right to life must be protected for all, especially the unborn who cannot fend for themselves.
Blackmun based the majority opinion on just this, he stated that there was no consensus on when life began because he knew that the Constitution acknowledges the right to life and its primacy over liberty and property.
President Bush understands this which is why he is moving slowly but inexorably toward defining the unborn as persons. It is a good strategy and I commend him for what he is doing.
Blackmun based the majority opinion on just this, he stated that there was no consensus on when life began because he knew that the Constitution acknowledges the right to life and its primacy over liberty and property.
President Bush understands this which is why he is moving slowly but inexorably toward defining the unborn as persons. It is a good strategy and I commend him for what he is doing.