Abortion before the third trimester

Point A: I will concede to you on that, that we agree. Point B: I still disagree with you that the basis of laws lie in societal morality. If we go back to the introduction of law, sometime before the time of the Greek era, we find many writings on the concept of law and morality. Greek thinkers such as Aristotle, Sophocles, Plato and others wrote extensively on the difference between what lawconsidered right and what seemed natural, or moral. One who is well read has at one time or another read these writers. In the first appearance of law it was assumed that the law was the desires of the gods. The average citizens were willing to obey the law because they thought that was whattheir gods expected of them. But when they looked around at what was really happening, they found that law did not follow the natural flow of things in most cases and that the law was more a tool of the rulers or the upper class to control the lower class. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. Most individuals feel that what is legal is legitimate. In the case of Roe vs Wade (Jane Roe whose real name was Norma McCorvey) Roe was pregnant, but never did get an abortion. She had had two children prior to seeking an abortion. When she went to the clinic to seek an abortion, the clinic had closed. In the process of attempting to find another clinic, she was referred to two female lawyers that were liberal feminists looking for a patsy to try an abortion case in the Supreme Court. Roe then lied and told the Supreme Court that she had been raped and that she needed the abortion. She did this, of course, because she never appeared before the court herself. It was all done through her lawyers. So, the Supreme Court passed out a ruling on a case that was a lie from the very beginning. Roe herself was actually a homosexual and a drug addict. She had numerous relationships with other women and at one time maintained a relationship with one woman for almost two decades. She gave birth to her third child. She had put her first two up for adoption. She later went to work in an abortion clinic where she met with and talked to women on a daily basis who were getting abortions. She eventually became Catholic and regretted what she had done in the Roe vs Wade court case and applied to the Supreme Court to have the ruling reversed. The court refused her hearing on the grounds that her case was moot. Jane Roe A.K.A. Norma McCorvey eventually formed a foundation called "Roe no More'to fight abortion and help women understand the trauma and heart break they suffer as a consequence of abortion. Thousands of women tell of their experiences after abortion. Some tell of waking up in the middle of the night hearing children crying, feeling depressed and not knowing why, feelings of regret and having difficulty having children later when they want to. But most complain that no one told them about what the consequences would be later. As far as statistics go, I am citing a poll conducted by Zogby. I like Zogby because I consider him to be more impartial than most. He is a bipartisan pollster. One of his polls on abortion can be viewed here: www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6982 As far as the context of the debate being in the first trimester or the last, it makes no difference. I conceded to you in the very beginning of the debate that there was no way to win that argument, since it has already been legalized by the Supreme Court. I will agree with you on the context that most opinion is subjective and in that context, if we look at polls that have been conducted over the last thirty years, we find that the opinion of the public is moving more and more to the right and individuals and new generations of individuals are taking the view that Roe vs Wade may be wrong and may pressure the Supreme Court to reverse its decision. Only time will decide the outcome. The original decision was a 5 to 4 decision and today it still teeters on a 5 to 4 precipice. As far as abortion being protected by the Constitution, I must disagree with you. Nowhere in the Constitution is the subject of abortion mentioned. And, in fact, I would venture to say that if the founders of the Constitution were here today and one was to suggest to them that abortion was protected under it, they would be appalled at the idea. The Supreme Court has stretched the Fourteenth Amendment to the limit in order to legalize abortion under a persons right to free choice. It is a wonder that trial lawyers have not used the ruling to justify the murder of other people, by their clients, because they are making a free choice as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. Of course we know that is ridiculous, so why isn't the murder of a baby in the womb ridiculous? Because it is not politically expedient. I will agree with you that the Supreme Court does not just randomly pick something out of the air when they are making a decision. I am quite aware of the process they go through. It is a process of debate in which each and every justice involved in the case expresses his point of view and how he arrived at it. In the end they decide whether it is protected or prohibited by the Constitution. The rub comes in when they apply the Constitution. Each justice, just like each individual and scholars, looks at the Constitution in one of two different ways. It is either a static or living instrument. Most liberals look at it as a living instrument, whereas, most conservatives look at it as static. As a living instrument most liberals feel that they can imply what it means when it is necessary to accomplish what they want. Just as you do when you say that abortion is protected under the Constitution, when it plainly is not, since it is not mentioned there. By stretching the meaning of ‘the right to a free choice' in the fourteenth amendment you can imply that it is. As a static instrument, it would be impossible for the justices to find the act of abortion legal. That is why four of the justices dissent. Their view of the Constitution is that it is a static instrument and nowhere does it protect the right to an abortion. And, yes, I agree, just because they are legal does not necessarily make them wrong. Point C: You stated that I did not provide a better definition when I criticized the Supreme Court on theirs. I thought that I had provided a definition. As you point out from the beginning, it will be up to those who vote as to which is the best. I pointed out that I felt, as many do, that life begins at conception, not at the thirdtrimester. If we look at the fetus just sixty days after the blastocyst attaches itself to the wall of the uterus it is almost as big as a kidney bean. It has a head, a rump and hands with webbed fingers. It is clearly developing into a human being and has all the necessary DNA and tools to finish growing into the viable individual that the Supreme Court gives a woman the right to kill, before the third trimester, of course. You say that I agree with you on the Supreme Court being the authority on what is viable and what is not. I agreed with you that the Supreme Court is the appointed authority on Constitutional Law. From a moral and religious point of view, I would have to say that the individual and God would have to be a better choice of what is viable and what is not. God said, "I am alpha and omega, the beginning and end of all things." He also said, "I am the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." In other words, if it was wrong a thousand years ago, it will be wrong a thousand years from now. The Bible speaks of abortion in only one place. If I remember right, it is in the King James version in Exodus 21: 22-23. It speaks only of the price one must pay for damage to a fetus.