Was the us Supreme Court Decision on Abortion in Roe vs Wade 1973 just – No

First and foremost, let’s establish the fact that an unborn child, zygote, embryo, fetus, “uterine package,” whatever you prefer to call him or her, is a living individual human being. The main Harvard Medical School textbook, the American Medical Association, even the pro-abortion rights American Gynecological and Obstetrics Association define life as “beginning at conception.” From conception, the unborn each have their own unique genetic blueprint, encoding nearly all of their characteristics. Development occurs extraordinarily rapidly. Within 25-30 days of conception, there is a small heart beat. Within 40 days there are brainwaves measurable by both electroencephalogram (EEG) and positron emission topography (PET) scans. At 6 weeks there are 10 discernible fingers and 10 toes, and by 8 weeks fingerprints are visible. Scientifically and factually speaking, the unborn are unique individual living human beings.

Now we know with what we are are dealing.

Do you have the right to do what you want with your own body? Certainly. Do you have that right when it violates another human being’s fundamental right to life? Certainly not (besides, abortion DOES NOT concern JUST a woman’s body, but the life of another human being). Abortion is not just a simple medical procedure, like an appendectomy or tonsillectomy that removes just another inanimate body part. Abortion is a physically, psychologically, and emotionally traumatic procedure that often leaves women emotionally scarred and always leaves another innocent human being dead. The law defines “killing” as “depriving of life,” and since we know life begins at conception, abortion ALWAYS constitutes the killing of an innocent and defenseless human being. Abortion, at the very least, is the legal equivalent of manslaughter. Therefore, since abortion as a matter of scientific and legal fact constitutes killing, the law has not only the right, but the obligation to prohibit the procedure in the interest of protecting life. Furthermore, as abortion is killing, it is not just a subjective and morally relative matter of “personal conscience,” but rather it is an objective and universal wrong. No one of sane mind would claim that whether or not to kill a human being is just a matter of “personal conscience” and that the law should allow it.

In addition, the very philosophical underpinnings of the pro-abortion rights side are fundamentally flawed. “Pro-choicers,” by their own admission, say they are “just standing for the right to choose.” Anti-abortionists by contrast stand for the right to life. Does the woman, and every human being, have a right to choose? Of course. But every human being has a much more fundamental right to life. If and when the two rights conflict, the right to life always supersedes and outweighs the right to choose, because the right to life is the most basic and important of all rights. This is so because it is from the right to life that all other rights are derived; without the right to life, you have no right to choose, to free speech, to freedom of religion, to habeas corpus, to trial by jury, etc. Therein lies the logical flaw of the pro-abortion rights side. In pursuing their “right to choose,” they’re undercutting the most important and fundamental right to life. They want to be able to violate the very right without which they would have no “right to choose.” The reality is, the right to life must be secure for ALL human beings first, or else we cannot expect our other rights to be secure at all.

There is just one other aspect, however, that needs to be discussed. That is constitutionality of the ruling itself. Now most of what I’m about to say comes from the William Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade. For one, Rehnquist pointed out, the case should never have been heard at all. That’s because the case was actually based on a hypothetical scenario. Norma McCorvey, a.k.a. “Jane Roe” claimed that while working for a carnival in Texas she was raped and impregnated. Under the circumstance of rape, Texas statues would have permitted an abortion, thus rendering it a moot case. But McCorvey and her attorneys changed the story to “what if she had not been raped.” This is a hypothetical scenario, and Article III of the Constitution does not allow the Supreme Court to hear, let alone rule on a case based on a hypothetical scenario. Secondly, there is no Constitutional or legal basis for the “right to abortion.” The justices who authored the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade created that right out of “legal thin air,” basing it on the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. This amendment was intended to ensure that people were secure in their personal belongings and effects, not to create the right to abortion. This ruling, therefore, was a terrible extrapolation, misinterpretation, and abuse of the Fourth Amendment. Thirdly, the Constitution only permits the Supreme Court to issue rulings and legal remedies that are case-specific, meaning the Court cannot issue a broadly sweeping new law, which is what Roe v. Wade did. The Constitution would have allowed the Court to permit McCorvey herself to have an abortion, but rather the Court issued a sweeping ruling striking down all abortion restrictions in all 46 states which had them (New York, Washington state, Hawaii and Alaska had none at the time). For the Court to issue a broad ruling striking down state laws is also a violation of the Court’s powers and duties as set forth in Article III of the Constitution. That is also a violation of the Ninth Amendment, which states that any power not specifically delegated to the federal government, nor specifically prohibited from the states or people, are reserved to the states or the people, respectively. The Supreme Court had no Constitutional right to hear a hypothetical case, create a right to abortion, and then impose its view on all 50 states.

In summary, Roe v. Wade was flawed logically, philosophically and constitutionally.