Lets frame this as a Legal Argument first, how the laws of 46 of 50 states were subverted and usurped by 7 0f 9 Justices on the Supreme Court on January 22nd, 1973. Then we will look at other interesting facts and issues.
Lets look to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I know that is a novel idea in today’s “modern” and “progressive” America, but I digress, let’s do it anyway, we may start a trend.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I introduce you to the Declaration of Independence:
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
… and, The Declaration’s companion document, the United States Constitution:
The Preamble states,
We The People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Ok lets dig in. If the founders believed in a self-evident truth, that we were created equal, and since we were created equal, our creator had endowed us with certain unalienable rights, that among these were LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of HAPPINESS. We should not find ourselves so distantly removed from these self-evident truths that are as true today, as they were hundreds of years ago.
The Declaration goes on to say,
To secure these RIGHTS, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
You read that right, government is instituted among Men to, SECURE the rights that God Gave Him, not the Government.
The Constitution states,
Were going to make a MORE perfect Union, one that establishes JUSTICE, insures DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, one that provides for the common defense, one that promotes general WELFARE, and finally a Government that will SECURE the BLESSINGS of LIBERTY to ourselves and our POSTERITY.
Now, If the Declaration says we were created, and that we have unalienable, God given rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and equally the Constitution goes on to say that the very reason Government is in existence is to secure the blessings of ourselves and our Posterity, how can any government, local, state, or federal, deny the rights their supposed to protect, to the weakest among us, defenseless children in the womb? And especially on the flimsy excuse that the Supreme Court majority opinion used, privacy. So, lets bare that out quickly. Since privacy is king, can I murder someone because i’m behind closed doors? No. Of course not. But I was in private?! What a simply terrible excuse.
Watch this video dated 1/22/1973. Walter Kronkite tells the world that the Supreme Court has overturned anti-abortion laws in 46 states. Watch closely at the 2:08 mark, and see the usual suspects.
And now watch this one, of the original plaintiff in the case, “Jane Row”. She shares the truth, and her Christian conversion.
Progressives have been using “the Majority of one” and the court system for a very long time!
Its called Legislating by Judicial Fiat. You see, 46 of 50 States already had enforced the high and moral ideas of the Declaration and Constitution. But two legal challenges were filed, one in Georgia and one in Texas against the state laws forbidding abortion. The alias “Jane Roe” was used for Norma McCorvey, on whose behalf the suit was originally filed, alleging that the abortion law in Texas violated her constitutional rights and the rights of other women.. The defendant was the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, Henry B. Wade.
Who argued the case:
Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee were the plaintiff’s lawyers. John Tolle, Jay Floyd and Robert Flowers were the defendant’s lawyers. You really should do some indepth research on these two women and on Norma McCorvey “Jane Row”. Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee are feminest classmates who attended Texas law school together. The two attorneys used Norma to promote their Pro-death stance, and to get it shoved through the courts. Norma McCorvey “Jane Row”, never stepped foot into any court room, throughout the entire proceedings. She also never had an abortion, and now has three daughters.
Who voted for and against the Roe v. Wade decision:
The majority: Harry Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Chief Justice Warren Burger, William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis Powell and Potter Stewart. The dissent: William Rehnquist and Byron White. The majority opinion was written by Harry Blackmun. Concurring opinions were written by Potter Stewart, Warren Burger, and William O. Douglas. Dissenting opinions were written by William Rehnquist and Byron White.
I borrowed this from a blog that I follow principlesnotmen.wordpress.com
James Wilson was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a member of the Constitutional Convention, and a Supreme Court Justice—a Founder if ever there was one. He wrote a piece called Of the Natural Rights of Individuals. In it he said this about the sanctity of life:
“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.”
As with everything our Founders said, this can be nitpicked beyond original intent. An abortionist could easily say, “But he said ‘first able to stir in the womb.’ That does not mean life begins at conception.” Well let’s think about that one.
First, back in the 1700’s, did they even understand the idea of “at conception”? This was a time when doctors still bled patients who were sick in order to get the germs out. Did they understand the concept of fertilization at a DNA level? Not likely. In discussing a child, what else WOULD he have said other than “first able to stir in the womb”?
Second, along these same lines, they did not have the technology to determine a pregnancy until the baby is “first able to stir in the womb.” They did not have pregnancy tests. It would have been pointless to talk about life beginning at conception if nobody could even imagine knowing pregnancy (or understanding it) that early. He seems to be saying, “When you know you are pregnant, you cannot now kill it.”
Now on to the philosophy of life, but not man’s philosphy, Gods.
Here’s what could be considered the liberal argument for abortion, what if rape, incest, or life of the mother is threatened? Then should we abort? No. Why? Because the bible teaches that we are not our own, we don’t own our bodies, we belong to God, sinner or saint, and we also don’t get to play God over life. Let’s just take one of these to task, rape.
Take Pastor James Robison, of Life Today. Pastor Robison’s mother was raped and he was conceived in that rape. She didn’t abort, and the ministry that God has given him helps feed hundreds of thousands of children. Now, lets contrast that with the thought of him being aborted, look how many people would have missed the blessings of this one man’s life, if it had been taken before he ever got started. Life is precious in the sight of God.
Some say, its just some cells, just suck them out and continue with your life, lets take a biological look at this issue. If the sperm is alive, and the egg is alive, and when the two join, the embryo is alive, if left to its natural course, the child will be alive.
So therefore, we should not kill a child.
That word Posterity in the preamble means that the Constitution protects our unborn, posterity, is our sons and daughters. What if just one of the 49 million children who have been aborted since Roe v. Wade, was the next child to grow into the adult that cured cancer, or cured diabetes, or engineered the next staggering medical breakthrough, we are a nation that is sacrificing our future for our present whims. Abstinence, and adoption, are our highest calling in educating our society on this national tragedy.
“America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has shown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts ~ a child ~ as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.” Mother Teresa
Robert E. Stage Jr.