Roe v. Wade is a very messed-up decision

Thank you, Con. By messed-up, I mean it has a multitude of errors in it including, but not limited to, moral errors, precedence errors, court rule errors, constitutionality errors, societal, and literary errors. I will address these all. Moral Errors The moral errors are that the decision to legalize so called abortion sets up man as a god, mocks nature and is murder. The decision implies that the SCOTUS has the right to overturn God"s laws, and that man has the right to take innocent life. I say, God is the giver of life; He should be the only taker of life. Roe v. Wade attacks nature by making sex no longer an action for reproduction, but a pleasure. It says that the natural occurrence that follows sex can be cast out. This turns sex into another pleasure, not a reproductive activity with pleasures there only to ensure the population of the world. Then, the most disputed aspect of abortion is over whether or not it is murder. People who oppose such a statement claim that viability is necessary for personhood, and that the man"s sperm becomes part of the women for nine months before it becomes a person (and changes from having a blob nature to having a human nature). Those who are pro-life claim that the baby has both personhood and human nature from the moment of conception. Precedence Errors The majority decision cites many previous cases that would support the said decision. For instance they relied on the work of Cyril Means who misjudges the cases against abortion. The Twinslayer" Case, for example, was said to be a ruling for the legality of abortion, while the ruling really states that nobody could prove that the defendant had actually aborted the twins. Sim"s Case was also a ruling based not on legalization of abortion (as SCOTUS would have you believe) but of lack of evidence. There are multiple cases like this that the SCOTUS tries to use as precedence. In fact, to name only one of many precedence that opposed Roe v. Wade decision, the Bonbrest v. Kotzin decision declared that science proved the child to always be separate of the mother, not just a part of her. Court Rule Errors The Court Rule for accepting cases clearly denied cases where there was no plaintiff or no conflict. That the person Roe was a real person who had had a real issue with the Texas law, was merely demonstrated (not proven) Thus, the case should never have been accepted. And the court agreed Roe had no conflict at the time of the Supreme Court hearing, but chose to make an exception. Again, the case should never have been heard. Constitutionality Errors First, this lies simply in that the right to life, assured in many places in the constitution, was completely ignored. Secondly, the right to kill one"s child was granted as a right to "privacy" in the 9th and 14th Amendments. This Justice Rehnquist points out in his dissenting opinion, is absurd, as the right to privacy is a right against "unreasonable search and seizures", of which babies are in no way violators. Societal Problems The societal problems lie in that the family is the building block of society, and most women who have abortions suffer from guilt thereafter. The family is destroyed, the parents lose their child, and the children their brother or sister. Society is denied of person who could have been great, who could have done so much, but was denied the chance. As Mother Theresa of Calcutta assured, if a mothers" killing of her babby is protected by the law, then the law is simply advocating to the whole world, "Kill anyone who would get in the way of you obtaining your goal." For if a mother can kill her child then anyone can kill anyone. Literary Errors The decision is hard to understand as it is, because of the poor grammar. There are multitudes of run on sentences, and the conclusions are drawn in such a vague way that one might think the SCOTUS is supporting, rather than abolishing, the Texas laws. It is vague and rambling, which just goes to show that the authors were on ends trying to justify themselves. If you wish to see for yourself, read it. http://caselaw.findlaw.com... Also, I advise reading "Law & History of Abortion: The Supreme Court Refuted" by Stephen M. Krason William B. Holberg I rest my case.