Embryonic stem cell research and the Constitution are in conflict with Roe versus Wade

The first argument Con uses is, "What the Supreme Court says that the Constitution says *is* what the Constitution says". He quotes Supreme Court Justice Jackson as saying, that the Court is infallible. However, this web site (http://en.wikipedia.org...) shows over 120 overturned cases. I agree the Court is the final arbitrator, and the law is enforced as interpreted. This doesn't mean the decision was correct. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." (http://www.nps.gov...) In Con"s first rebuttal, he argues that in Roe v. Wade (https://www.law.cornell.edu...) the Supreme Court "never claimed that life does not start at conception." They "danced around the issue" and ignored the question. One finds the Court referring to the unborn as prenatal life, potential life, or potentiality of human life in the majority opinion. In Justice Stewart"s opinion he takes it one step further by referring to the unborn as, "the potential future human life within her." The direct quote from Justice Blackmun in the opinion is, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." It is a matter of basic science to determine this. When life begins is critical in the debate. Con has conceded the point already. However, for others, let us remove emotion from the argument and deal with any animal of your choosing. For instance, when does a new dog come into existence? From a purely scientific standpoint, a new individual dog comes into existence at the time of fertilization (conception). The following website is a white paper regarding this issue. (http://bdfund.org...) This paper elegantly argues that it is at the time of the fusion of the sperm and egg, and not syngamy, that defines this point. Although Con states Gonzalez v. Carhart is about the rights of two humans being in conflict, "" the woman"s right to bodily autonomy and the fetus"s right to life." The correct interpretation is the conflict between a woman"s right to choose the method used in her abortion and the Federal Government's right to prohibit it. The whole debate hinges on this issue. For this, we need to revisit Roe v. Wade. In Roe v. Wade the Court adeptly choose the XIV Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu...) for its ruling. It allowed the Court to define which human beings to protect. This is not unimportant as the Declaration of Independence (http://www.archives.gov...) succinctly puts who our forefathers considered should have rights, "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 order is important for without life, you can't have liberty, and without liberty you can"t have happiness. Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade writes as follows regarding the 14th amendment, "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." In short, the unborn have been ruled by the Court to be non persons. They have no rights under the Constitution. Therefore the States and the Federal Government have to enact laws to protect them. Is this correct? In the Preamble to the Constitution (http://www.archives.gov...) our forefathers wrote, "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." The key words which places Roe v. Wade into question are "and our posterity". The legal definition of posterity is, "All the descendants of a person in a direct line."(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...) Our descendants include our zygotes through our elderly population. The IX Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu...) states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The word person is not used in this amendment, so the embryo and fetus are included, as implied by the Preamble to the Constitution. Embryonic stem cell research and the Constitution are in conflict with Roe versus Wade Human embryonic stem cells are totipotential, thus allowing them to develop into any cell in the human body. Not only this, but a search of the web shows that scientists are working on cloning human beings from these cells. This has consequences. The first (most concerning) is these human beings could be used as non-consenting organ donors. What if a human was cloned from a stem cell line previously used in multiple experiments resulting in patents? Will those patents be owned by the new cloned individual and will the companies and individuals be liable for subjecting this unique individual (unique DNA) to a period of involuntary servitude? Can punitive damages be awarded because these entities violated the Constitutional rights of that individual? Amendment XIII of the Constitution reads as follows, Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. (https://www.law.cornell.edu...) Regarding human experimentation, Congress has deemed that all federal research monies should be subject to the ethical standards of the Belmont Report quoted below. (http://www.hhs.gov...) "However, not every human being is capable of self-determination. The capacity for self-determination matures during an individual's life, and some individuals lose this capacity wholly or in part because of illness, mental disability, or circumstances that severely restrict liberty. Respect for the immature and the incapacitated may require protecting them as they mature or while they are incapacitated." "Finally, assessment of the justifiability of research should reflect at least the following considerations: (i) Brutal or inhumane treatment of human subjects is never morally justified." In using the Preamble to the Constitution, Amendment IX, Amendment XIII, and Amendment XIV of the Constitution I propose that the argument that human embryonic stem cell research and the Constitution are in conflict with Roe v. Wade. However, despite having shown that Roe v. Wade should be revisited, I shall deal with Cons" argument that the "Supreme Court has employed utilitarian calculations in the past" and which in his opinion favor abortion. First, I agree with Justice Blackmun in the right to privacy. Second, I agree that women have a right to control their own bodies. However, like the dissenting justices in Gonzales v. Carhart (Justice Ginsburg, Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and justice Breyer) I support their argument that women (and men) have to be responsible regarding intimacy because of the risk of creating a new human being, with individual rights including the right to life which supersedes other rights. "In cases on a "woman"s liberty to determine whether to [continue] her pregnancy," this Court has identified viability as a critical consideration. There is no line [more workable] than viability," the court explained in Casey, for viability is "the time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb, so that the independent existence of the second life can in reason and all fairness be the object of the state protection that now overrides the rights of the woman". In some broad sense it might be said that a woman who fails to act before viability has consented to the State"s intervention on behalf of the developing child." Where I disagree with the statement is in the last sentence. My disagreement is with the word "viability." This word should be changed to "implantation." Women do have the right to control their own bodies. They have the right to make the environment of their endometria of their uteri non-conducive to implantation of blastocysts (IUD, morning after pill). They also have the right to prevent ovulation (the pill). They can use barrier methods, and spermicidal and require their partners to do the same. The time has come for both men and women to take responsibility for their intimacy. The wanton destruction of our fellow human beings, allowed by infamous decisions of the Supreme Court, beginning with Roe v. Wade needs to end. For the above reasons Con must concede.