Is Abortion a Constitutional Right?
Abortion is not a constitutional right according to a direct reading of the text of the Constitution – abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution – and according to the recent ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson by the Supreme Court. In the past, progressives justified the alleged Constitutional under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy, seeing the Constitution as a “living document.”
This “living constitution” argument is often used by pro-abortionists. As former U.S. President Barack Obama once asserted, “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.”1 Obama, formerly a law professor, obviously must know that this “right” does not actually exist ― the Supreme Court literally conjured it out of thin air in its efforts to justify the most illogical, sloppily written opinion that it has ever produced.
However, as the Supreme Court found on June 24, 2022, this loose interpretation of the Constitution does not hold legal weight. Today, abortion is not protected under the Constitution.
Creating a Constitutional Right to Abortion
In the 1960s, revolution ― especially of the sexual variety ― was in the air. This revolutionary spirit made its way into the Supreme Court. The justices were committed to promoting this “progressive” agenda. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade showed that their tactic to legalize abortion was to extend the right to privacy beyond its natural and legitimate dimensions.
Of course, we do indeed possess an authentic right to privacy, founded in the Fourth Amendment. This right protects us from, among other things, unreasonable searches and seizures. Others enjoy this genuine right to privacy, including married couples, doctors and patients, attorneys and clients, people engaging in business transactions, and priests and penitents.
But immoral and deadly activities require a manufactured legal cover. As the Gospel of John says, “The light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (3:19-20).
“Is Abortion a Constitutional Right?” The Court’s Answer
Eventually, the courts found the perfect segue into creating a right to abortion in Griswold v. Connecticut. The decision in this case overturned a Connecticut law prohibiting the sale or distribution of birth control devices.
The court system of the State of Connecticut correctly believed that the use of contraceptives would eventually lead to the breakdown of the family and the degradation of marriage. In fact, the state’s Supreme Court had already turned back several constitutional challenges to this law. But it could not withstand an activist U.S. Supreme Court, which handed down its Griswold v. Connecticut decision on June 7, 1965.
The majority found that the Connecticut law violated the “right to marital privacy,” which was found in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of other constitutional protections. In other words, they believed this “right to marital privacy” was still protected by the Constitution, though it was not explicitly stated as such. Justice Arthur Goldberg thought that this protection might lie in the Ninth Amendment, and Justice John Marshall Harlan speculated that it might lie in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
But nobody was really sure.
In Griswold, Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored Roe v. Wade, wrote:
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy. In a line of decisions, however, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy … does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have indeed found at least the roots of the right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, and in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights.
In his dissent, Justice Potter Stewart wrote, “With all due deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court.”
The stone was rolling. Before 1972, only married couples had the right to purchase and use contraceptives. But in the Eisenstadt v. Baird decision of 1972, the Supreme Court expanded that right to unmarried people. The third word in the “right to marital privacy” quickly disappeared. Soon after, of course, came the January 22, 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, which have led to the extermination of nearly one-sixth of the American population under a supposed constitutional right to abortion.
For two centuries in the United States, this “right” was never considered part of the Constitution. Thus, the justices felt pressure to justify changing this norm. They kept falling back on the idea that the right to privacy guaranteed abortion rights. The Legal Times exposed the negligence of the reasoning process of the justices: “Looking back on that argument, [Sarah Weddington] laughs as she recalls that Justice Potter Stewart asked her where in the Constitution she found the “right” to abortion she had so fervently argued. “Any place we find it will be okay with you, right?” Stewart asked Weddington.”2
Since then, the Supreme Court has seen three major cases that changed the way abortion legality is interpreted.
Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Where Abortion was Upheld, But Viability and “Undue Burden” Determined Legality
In 1982, the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act required that, absent a medical emergency (in which case, none of these requirements would apply), a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions be followed. Abortion facilities were required to give certain information regarding abortion to the woman and wait for 24 hours before performing the abortion. It also required minors to receive parental consent or a judicial bypass before being allowed an abortion. Finally, it required that married women inform their spouses of the abortion beforehand.
A group of Planned Parenthoods in Pennsylvania challenged this law and brought the governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, Sr., to court. In the case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the Court decided to uphold Roe v. Wade’s restrictions on abortions pre-viability. However, the point of viability had been moved up after Roe v. Wade. Additionally, abortions performed post-viability were only allowed in situations where the mother’s health or life were at risk. The Court also rejected the “rigid trimester framework” of Roe. Roe was concerned with and focused on trimesters to justify when and how abortions were acceptable and when the government could restrict abortions.
Instead, Casey took a new approach and focused on viability to determine whether an abortion was an option. This case was concerned about whether an abortion law or restriction would place an “undue burden” on the woman seeking an abortion.
Additionally, the parental consent clause was upheld. However, the spousal notification requirement from the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act was struck down as unconstitutional as it was deemed an “undue burden” on the part of the pregnant mother.3
Essentially, Casey v. Planned Parenthood increased state regulations on abortion, while also upholding the overall decision of Roe v. Wade. It ruled that abortion could not be restricted to the point of imposing an “undue burden” on the woman seeking the abortion.4
This case set a precedent in later cases. The major question in abortion cases after Casey asked whether a given abortion restriction placed an “undue burden” on the pregnant mother.
Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, Where Medical Benefits Justified an “Undue Burden”
In 2013, Texas passed H.B.2, a bill that required abortion clinics to meet certain standards that were deemed “unreasonable” by the clinics themselves. These standards included a requirement that the attending abortionist have admitting privileges within a 30-mile radius, and that the clinic itself meet the requirements set out for ambulatory surgery centers.
These requirements led to the widespread closure of about half the abortion clinics in Texas, which made abortion access more difficult for women in Texas. Additionally, abortions were banned after 20 weeks under this bill.5
In passing this bill, Texas was following the recommendations of the report of the Grand Jury in Pennsylvania, 2011. This report investigated the case of Kermit Gosnell, an abortionist who was charged with three murders and manslaughter. This report called for abortion clinics to follow standards for ambulatory surgical centers.6
Whole Women’s Health sued the state, saying that this law placed an “undue burden” on women in seeking an abortion (which was already considered a Constitutional right, thanks to Roe v. Wade).
The Court ruled that the standards set forth by H.B.2 were unconstitutional. It further set the precedent that the “undue burden” question should be considered in a cost/benefits light.
Namely, it ruled that any abortion ban must be grounded in medical benefits that are sufficient to justify the burden they place.5
Dobbs v. Jackson, Where Roe v. Wade Was Overturned
2022 saw the overturn of Roe v. Wade and a return of abortion law to state discretion. In Dobbs v. Jackson, the Court ruled that abortion is not, in fact, protected under the Constitution – a central argument in Roe v. Wade.
Additionally, the Court explained that abortion is not deeply rooted in history, and, in fact, when the 14th Amendment was established (an Amendment that allegedly protected abortion), abortion at any point during pregnancy was prohibited in three-quarters of the states. Further, the Court recognized that, in giving each individual state the power to decide whether they wanted to legalize abortion in their own constituency, there would be individuals who disagree with the Court’s decision in this case. These individuals would argue that bodily autonomy should guarantee abortion access. The Court thus explained and defended its decision by pointing out that using autonomy as a way to justify abortion would open the door to justifying further evils, such as prostitution or drug use.7
The Illicit “Right” to Privacy Leads to Other Injustices
The paramount damage done by the illicit privacy “right” is to the cardinal virtue of justice, “The moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor” [Catechism, ¶1807].
The best way to determine whether or not an activity should be legal is to determine whether or not it honors justice.
When people claim a “right” to privacy in order to cover illicit and sinful actions, such as abortion, justice always suffers grave damage, because the rights of God and of other persons are simply disregarded. Some examples:
Harvesting Aborted Fetal Tissue
In 2016, the Center for Medical Progress released undercover videos of Planned Parenthood executives. The journalists in the videos were actors posing as employees of organ harvesting companies. Drs. Jennefer Russo and Deborah Nucatola are featured in this video, where they confirm that their Planned Parenthood clinics are working with biotech companies to sell harvested fetal body parts from aborted fetuses. Dr. Russo even admitted to changing how she performs the abortion to obtain an intact “specimen,” i.e., a lung, or a heart, or a brain.8
Even CNN, a strong abortion supporter, reported on this issue. They did not deny that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue samples or “specimens,” and they even defended the inhumane practice. They only condemned the practice of changing an abortion procedure to procure a specific “specimen.”9
As deceased human beings, these aborted children should receive the respect and care that any deceased human receives, along with burial rights. But priority is given to medical research and advancement, at the cost of human dignity – all in the name of privacy.
Transgenderism in Minors
Hormone “treatment” and transgender surgeries are now available for minors, with the age becoming lower and lower.10 “Therapists” are now threatening parents of transgender-presenting children with an impossible question: “Would you rather have a transgender child, or a dead child?” Their assertion is that, without treatment, their child is at a higher risk of suicide. At the same time, they bemoan the fact that in all of human history, society has only recently begun to accept transgenderism.
Because of this, there are no studies on the long-term effects of transgenderism. The question then becomes – how can they be sure that the child is at higher risk of suicide, if there are no long-term studies to support this claim? How does this justify emotional blackmail? The long-term health effects of hormone “therapy” and surgery on minors is unclear still.11
Many trans activists will assert that hormone therapy and transgender surgeries are never performed on minors. Chloe Cole, a detransitioning young adult who went through a double mastectomy at age 16, would disagree. Of course, it’s all about how privacy awards people the right to do whatever they like with their bodies – and those of their children, too.12
There is a growing movement to legalize consensual prostitution, calling prostitution a “human right,” arguing that, if it’s the only way the woman knows how to make a living, who are we to stand in her way?13 In reality, prostitution is a degradation of human dignity, and it condones a culture where women are seen as objects of gratification rather than valuable members of society. Legalized prostitution could easily lead to desperate women and girls to enter the industry who otherwise wouldn’t enter it.
There also is an undeniably strong link between prostitution and human trafficking, and if we want to combat trafficking, prostitution must be made illegal. Otherwise, brothels will be exploding with new women and girls, many of whom are not there willingly. It will then be all the harder to leave the industry, as it’s all perfectly legal.14 Once a woman or girl is in prostitution, it is difficult to leave for a myriad of reasons, including drug or alcohol addiction, coercion, or having this be the only way they know to make a living.15 Additionally, if it’s the only way she knows to make a living, does it make it truly consensual? According to some, yes, and all in the name of privacy.
Every American cherishes his privacy. Everyone believes that “a man’s home is his castle,” and almost everyone wants the government to interfere with his private life as infrequently as possible while still maintaining society’s fabric.
Since Americans value the concepts of “privacy,” “freedom” and “choice,” anti-lifers illegitimately extend them to cover their own behavior. Thus, they label any opposition to abortion, homosexual acts, euthanasia, and other abuses “intrusive,” “anti-freedom,” and “anti-choice.”
In the case of abortion, the right to privacy does not mean the right to any medical procedure desired.
Pro-lifers and other pro-family activists must understand the legal protection of human life. Abortion is not a Constitutional right. The argument that abortion falls under “privacy rights” opens the door to other unspeakable injustices, such as harvesting fetal tissues, transgenderism in minors, legalized prostitution, and other hideous sins and crimes.
Those who are activists for the protection of life should not feel guilty for opposing these, and other, injustices. After all, anti-lifers simply use the “right” to privacy as an excuse to legally kill other human beings.
The 2022 overturn of Roe v. Wade is the beginning of a return to our true Constitutional values. Abortion was never guaranteed under the Constitution. Pro-lifers should continue to work for the legal protection of human life and dignity, taking great hope from the results of Dobbs v. Jackson.
This article was originally published by Brian Clowes in May 2012 and most recently updated by Marisa Cantu in April 2023.
 Obama, Barack. “Statement by the President on Roe v. Wade Anniversary.” National Archives and Records Administration, January 22, 2012. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/22/statement-president-roe-v-wade-anniversary.
 Legal Times, March 4, 1985, page A35.
 “Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992).” Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Institute. Accessed April 6, 2023. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/planned_parenthood_of_southeastern_pennsylvania_v_casey_(1992).
 Taddonio, Patrice. “Documentaries Offer Context as Supreme Court Overturns Roe v Wade.” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, June 24, 2022. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/supreme-court-overturned-roe-v-wade-documentaries/.
 “Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.” Oyez. Accessed April 6, 2023. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-274.
 Report of the XXIII Grand Jury in the Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Criminal Trial Division, No. 0009901-2008, page 16.
 Newton, Craig. “Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022).” Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Institute, February 22, 2023. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dobbs_v._jackson_women’s_health_organization_(2022).
 Planned Parenthood OC Changes Abortions to Harvest Intact Fetuses for Local Company’s Sales. YouTube. YouTube, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwn0QBhy2TQ.
CMP launched multiple undercover videos. More videos can be found here: Investigative Footage – The Center for Medical Progress
 Almasy, Steve, and Eliott C. McLaughlin. “Planned Parenthood Exec, Fetal Body Parts Subject of Controversial Video.” CNN. Cable News Network, July 15, 2015. https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/health/planned-parenthood-undercover-video/index.html.
 Tanner, Lindsey. “Trans Kids’ Treatment Can Start Younger, New Guidelines Say.” AP NEWS. Associated Press, June 15, 2022. https://apnews.com/article/gender-transition-treatment-guidelines-9dbe54f670a3a0f5f2831c2bf14f9bbb.
 Terhune, Chad, Robin Respaut, and Michelle Conlin. “As Children Line up at Gender Clinics, Families Confront Many Unknowns.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, October 6, 2022. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-care/.
 Heipel, Edie. “Meet the 18-Year-Old Leading the Fight to Protect Children from Transgender Surgeries.” Catholic News Agency. Catholic News Agency, April 5, 2023. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252376/chloe-cole-leading-fight-to-protect-children-from-transgender-surgeries.
 “Sex Workers’ Rights Are Human Rights.” Amnesty International, October 11, 2021. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/08/sex-workers-rights-are-human-rights/.
“Legal Prostitution and Human Trafficking in the Netherlands.” European Centre for Law and Justice, April 26, 2022. https://eclj.org/geopolitics/eu/legal-prostitution-and-human-trafficking-in-the-netherlands.
 “Leaving Prostitution.” WomensLaw.org, October 10, 2017. https://www.womenslaw.org/about-abuse/forms-abuse/sexual-abuse-and-exploitation/prostitution/leaving-prostitution.
Does anyone believe that a woman has a choice when it comes to her body. Really!! I don’t like wearing seat belts. A wreck hurts no one’s body but mine. Government says I must wear them. Abortion kills another person other than the mother. Woman wants to kill herself. The law steps in and stops her.
Well, we are all allowed to have an opinion. I would never have an abortion due to my own personal beliefs. Unfortunately, the birth of my son via C-section led to my inability to have any other children. What everyone is forgetting is that this has nothing to do with abortion, that is a catalyst to create divide. The real underlying issue is privacy. Women’s right to privacy. Right to abortion itself, never in the constitution. It was attached to the 4th amendment and our rights to privacy. That includes our medical record and decisions that we make based on our personal doctors. HIPPA was put in place to extend that right, now it seems that no women in this country will have a guarantee of privacy. That’s what I worry about, and I think we all should be worried about..
If suicide is illegal than why is abortion not illegal? The reason abortion should be illegal is because it violates the person’s right to life. If a person (born or unborn, conscious or unconscious) has their right to life violated then that person is basically being treated like they have no rights at all.
People get upset if a person abuses or neglects an animal. But if someone kills an unborn child they say that it is no one’s business because women’s rights. Maybe you don’t know this but many people who are aborted are girls or “little women”. What about their rights? Their most basic and fundamental right (the right to life) was violated. And it happens every day all over the world.
The legitimate tragedy is not just the mere physical act, itself, but the fact that modern girls so often regard this ‘right’ as sacred…the ultimate liberal triumph is the degradation of our young women. Heavily tattooed, coarse in language, vulgar in sensibility…the whole notion of being a ‘lady’ is regarded as a quaint relic of another time…I have to pity the young men…so many of them will never actually even KNOW a lady…Quality girls were so often a maturing and civilizing influence on our young men. Never again. And I don’t know if there is any possibility of our culture bouncing back from such a loss.
Sorry, Gregory. I believe your opinion re girls and women is clouded by the company you keep or the circles you run in. Change your location, connect with professional people who have “boring” jobs, go to church. The females that you’re describing are NOT THE NORM in my world. And, how about females who are looking for that quality MAN, not the saggy pants wearing, rapper imitating, vile and female degrading language spurting, abusive males that these ladies have to weed through. Step outside your circle….maaaybe you’re one of the MEN they’re looking for.
What you said about doctors not having to report someone with AIDS is not true. Someone has to report it to the CDC, and in most states if a person is diagnosed and doesn’t tell their significant other then they can go to jail. They don’t have to personally tell them, but they have to at least arrange for a notification that basically says “someone you have been intimidate with has been exposed to HIV, please get tested”.
Also these are all extreme situations—what about people born to people with HIV? Why would you assume they committed a sin to get infected?
Also, if we ban abortions then we have the moral responsibility to help ensure the children are able to be taken care of. So why oppose funding for healthcare access which could have prevented pregnancies to begin with? Also the Medicaid laws are being destroyed in states, a lot of provisions for kids with special needs are gone or severely deficient. Plus the extra expenses associated with these children. How can we force someone to have a child with SEVERE disabilities without making sure they they are provided with the means to take care of the child they were forced to keep. And if even if they gave them up for adoption, how is that not also cruel knowing that the child will likely never be adopted by anyone? Plus whoever does adopt has to pick up the tab.
How can we force someone to have a child period if they can’t afford it. So even if it’s not their fault they are pregnant? Or let’s say they’re in sin, but who is to say that they know any better?
It just seems very contradictory. We don’t want people to have birth control, but we don’t want people to have abortions, and then we don’t help them take care of their children.
In general I don’t think we need to focus on banning things. I think we need to focus on preventing the situations that lead to a woman feeling that they need to make this decision. I think by putting blanket laws on things, we don’t account for some very extreme, unfortunate situations. There is a separation of church and state. So we can’t force someone who isn’t Christian to act like a Christian. Instead connect with people and help impact their lives and gives the best chance for them to learn how to make better decisions to begin with.
Stop Federal Funding if you want abortions legal. Problem solved for both sides.
Federal funding of what??
“In the United States, federal assistance, also known as federal aid, federal benefits, or federal funds, is defined as any federal program, project, service, or activity provided by the federal government that directly assists domestic governments, organizations, or individuals in the areas of education, health, public safety, public welfare, and public works, among others. The assistance, which can reach to over $400 billion annually, is provided and administered by federal government agencies.”
“The U.S. government spends a little more than 17 percent to provide for various programs that aid those in need”.
Be careful what you wish for. The government is in your life MORE THAN YOU KNOW. It’s called being an American. Thank God!
Birth control is AVAILABLE at stores, thru your Doctor by prescription and the was that can’t afford Birth Control Pills, there are Public Health departments in every state, in every county.
The only time an abortion is necessary should be for Rape, incest and the mother is in danger.
Impossible to refute the points made as both sides of this argument, in any given instance, have inherent asymmetric outcomes. I believe the only conclusion of this profound issue will be disobedience, civil unrest, and contemptuous seditious acts by numerous states, counties and municipalities. In the end, this may prove to have been a bad fight to pick at the wrong time … the consequences will most likely become kindling to a bonfire.
The difference between abusing an animal and aborting an unborn fetus is the animal is alive its already born duh, its breathing our air, the fetus dont breathe until its BORN then its a baby. Huge difference. Id never get an abortion but its not ok to tell others what they can do to there body. Until the fetus can survive without mom its not a living breathing person with rights sorry!!
Pathetic. So according to your highly flawed liberal logic that means someone who is on a ventilator is also not a person since they need a machine to breath for them. The unborn are human beings. They have the right to live.
If you aren’t sufficiently intelligent to write a proper sentence what makes you think you’re equipped to philosophize about life and law?
“Until the fetus can survive without mom its not a living breathing person”. in 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion, viability was at about twenty-four weeks. But now babies have survived 20 weeks after conception. So is the 21-week-old preemie a living breathing person? It seems only logical that if the 21-week-old preemie is fully human, then so is a 22 week and so on.
Actually, Christina, an unborn baby is alive. From the moment the child is conceived, implanted in the uterine wall, cells start to divide. Heartbeat is detectable in as little as three weeks. At nine weeks the baby can move, suck its thumb, has touch sensation – if a girl baby, it even has reproductive cells already. Many babies in the United States are aborted in the second trimester, after they feel pain. They are often killed during so-called “dismemberment abortions,” because the heart is injected with a drug to stop it beating, the brain is sucked out, and the baby is literally taken out in pieces. So we need to stop this inhumane procedure.
Alive, yes, but a human being? The brain is the seat of personhood. Can you murder a body that does not have a brain? Can a body without a brain be considered a person?
If Birth does not magically convey personhood, than neither does conception.
Yes, Kain, alive AND a human being. Human brain development begins as early as 16 days after conception when the neural plate forms, which is the foundation of a baby’s brain and spinal cord. The neural plate grows, folds onto itself and turns into the neural tube. At weeks 6 or 7 the neural tube closes and the brain separates into three parts. By week 8 neurons can interact and create fetal movement. Human brain development continues before birth, and in fact, after birth for years. Personhood as a justification to allow abortion at “some” point during pregnancy doesn’t negate the fact that abortion ends the life of a human being.
Where in Our Constitution does it mention ABORTION and don’t say LIBERTY, A b o r t i o n isn’t spelled Li b e r t y.
Why would you expect the Constitution to mention ABORTION? Men don’t get abortions and women were just a tad above chattel during that time. The word “women” is also not included in the Constitution.
If you’re going to be factual, don’t recite things “out of context”, i.e., MANY babies in the US are aborted in the 2nd trimester…. Here is how your MANY fits, in the real scheme of things:
Fast Facts: U.S. Abortion Statistics | Fox News
Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks’ gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester …
ShayJay, Using the Fox News statistics, 9% of second trimester or later abortions is nearly 150,000 babies every year. If 150,000 children were gunned down at school every year in this country, would you say “just a FEW”? No, 150,000 deaths is MANY.
The point I was making to you is, when you’re giving stats, MANY is not a number. What it is is a vague generality that is meant to sway people in your direction. Then, you go into a graphic description of the process to further sway the uninformed to your side. It would have been just as easy for you to state it as the FOX news article did, so people would see the entire picture. Actually, the whole 1.6 million abortions is an overwhelming figure; whenever they’re done. According to adoptions.com, “almost 108,000 children are waiting for adoption in the U.S. foster care system. This is the number of cases where the child is legally ready and waiting to find their family. Another 300,000 kids are being fostered that are not yet legally free for adoption and may return home or be placed in kinship care”.
So, I choose to believe that the decision to get an abortion is not an easy decision to make and it is emotionally taxing, for life, for the person who chooses to do it. Be a genuine pro-lifer for mom and baby by enhancing adoption programs and providing assistance with life, jobs and relationships. And, don’t just let those “sperm donors” keep getting away with mass production. Maybe it’s time to legislate how many times they can produce and not be accountable before mandatory vasectomy. And, no, a BS in math and science doesn’t permit ME to use words like MANY and FEW when stating facts. Best regards.
The biggest problem here is the way things are phrased. A “woman’s right to choose” is a term coined by feminists, and if you disagree with any form of abortion, you’ve fallen into their trap, the trap being that women shouldn’t have the right to make choices. Of course women have the right to make choices, just as men do; the problem with abortion is that women aren’t making choices involving *their* bodies, they’re making choices involving the body of the baby growing inside them, which isn’t their life, it’s the life of their child. Women don’t have the right to do whatever they want either, just as men don’t. If a woman chose to go to the doctor and had her arms and legs amputated, the doctor would refuse. If a woman was sick of living and went to the doctor and asked to be aborted, the doctor would refuse. If a woman said “it’s my body, I don’t want to wear a seat belt, the cop would still write her a ticket, and it would hold up in court.
We can’t pretend that the fetus and the person carrying it are completely separate from each other, when really, they’re vastly interconnected. A fetus requires pieces of the mother’s body to survive and grow, it requires taking space and energy and nutrients away from the mother. If someone was dying and your kidney could save them, no one could make you give up your kidney if you didn’t want to, even though it likely wouldn’t kill you to do so. If someone did force you to give up your kidney to save this other person, would you be okay with not being allowed to make that choice? To be put at great personal risk? To have someone else’s live valued over yours? To sacrifice your right to choose what is done with your body parts? I wouldn’t be okay with being forced to give up a kidney, any more than I would be okay with being forced to continue a pregnancy. By prioritizing the ‘life’ of the fetus, you are deciding what is done with someone’s body parts. You are giving the fetus the right to the pregnant person’s body. Pregnancy is taxing, invasive, and can be risky, I do not believe that it should be forced on anyone. I believe that everyone should have access to safe and legal abortions.
By that logic, one siamese twin should have the right to kill the other. After all, they are not “completely separate fom each other”.
For crying out loud, mother and child can have different blood types. Meaning, they NEVER share blood. You can make the convincing argument that the Fetus is NEVER a part of the woman’s body, that it is separate from the very beginning.
The Fetus relies on the mother for nourishment. That’s it. Other than that, it is a separate entity, and at some point during pregnancy, that entity becomes a person who must be afforded rights.
Then take the fetus and grow it. I do not give it permission to live inside me. If it’s alive and has rights, very well. It is yours, fetus saver.
The idiot came in me without my permission. Is there anything I can do about that? How about we force him to carry it to term? No, he made it clear he wants no part of it. Guess you get to keep it and grow it.
Your logic is flawed. If you were to leave 2 year old toddler to survive on his or her own would they be able to? They are still completely dependent upon someone else to survive. So does the mother have a right to neglect or completely abandon their child after they’re born? Of course not! Negligence or abandonment esp when it results in the harm or death of the child is considered a serious crime.
“Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is duty bound to address its scope.” Judge Clarence Thomas, 05/28/19. He does goes on to state that, “The Constitution itself is silent on abortion.” However, he has already correctly acknowledged that women DO have a Constitutional right to abortion under the Due Process Clause. A central purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, which is what they did with Roe vs. Wade. So, YES, abortion IS a protected right under the Constitution.
Actually, correction. He is not stating that women have that “right.” He is referencing that under the law, since 1973, the Supreme Court created a right that did not exist in the Constitution. In doing so, the Court overturned state laws all across America and created law instead of interpreting law, as it is duty bound to do. A similar parallel would be the Dred Scott decision, when the Supreme Court dictated that slaves had no right to freedom nor citizenship in the United States (1857). That decision obviously no longer stands. We hope the same for Roe vs. Wade.
That’s NOT a correction. That is additional information, but Deric is correct. Thomas recognized that abortion is currently a Constitutional right. Claiming otherwise is simply dishonest.
Abortion is absolutely a constitutional right — as of the current state of things. But just because it is lawful does not make it moral, and it does not mean that the Court cannot eventually undue its previous rulings on abortion.
Birth control is available everywhere. Don’t use abortion as a form of birth control. Its free for goodness sake. We protect unborn animals better then unborn children. If a baby survives an abortion they let it sit there struggling to breath, giving it no help until it dies. Its a baby out of the mother…where’s the baby’s rights? I’m sorry but that is wrong. Its murder.
Incorrect. The Supreme Court used the 4th amendment when interpreting whether abortion is a right. The 4th amendment only addresses a right to privacy. Never has the constitution or amendments given a right to end any life at any stage of development. People can argue about when life begins all they want to, but by law a life is pronounced dead when the heart no longer beats. Why then can’t common sense dictate that life begins when the heart starts beating? Oh yeah, I forgot…common sense is dead along with 1/6 of the unborn American population.
This is wonderful!! Once abortion is finally illegal can you please post your address so that we know where to send the adoption paperwork? These babies are so blessed that you would take it upon yourself to offer them the love and care they deserve.
Ah…folks, the Supreme court does RULE on laws of the land. Please at least try to be factual.
The Supreme Court also ruled in the Dred Scott that slaves had no entitlement to freedom in the 1800s. Yes, it was the RULE but it was contrary to natural law. The Supreme Court, however it rules, may not from a moral point-of-view ever precede natural law, which would naturally forbid both slavery and abortion.
As an accompaniment to the argument above, there are additional problems with the Roe vs. Wade case. One is that every human being is entitled to dignity under the law. This is affirmed in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere and viability plays no role. Second, Roe vs. Wade ruled that the “right to privacy” included abortion, which is not inferable from our Constitution. And third, Roe vs. Wade overturned existing law in all 50 states, meaning it legislated rather than reflected the laws of the nation. For more information, we recommend: https://www.mccl.org/post/2017/01/20/the-three-fundamental-problems-with-roe-v-wade.
Not only slaves but all “black persons of African origin, whose ancestors were brought [to America] as slaves.”
Several states permitted black men to vote.
Most of the black people of any complexion were natural born citizen’s. Taney and the Supreme Court swept their citizenship away with a stroke of the pen.
You can disagree with the decision, but it is still law and that means abortion IS a Constitutional right.
Natural law is a matter of opinion. What is “natural law” or moral to one person is not to another.
It is also an odd argument from you considering that the Bible and therefore presumably God considers slavery to be perfectly moral.
Also, fetuses are not considered people for legal purposes.
So, again, you can argue for a change all you like, but the fact remains that currently abortion is a Constitutional right.
Nope. Even Obama mistakenly stated that this Court overturned a constitutional right that women have had for 50 years. If this ‘right’ truly existed in the Constitution then why did it take so long to find it? No legal scholars until 50 years ago? Nope……politics.
This so-called ‘Constitutional right’ never did exist in the Constitution – nor was it ever law. It was a political decision sculpted out of thin air and imposed on us by liberal justices in response to loud protests. Despite being necessary and even perhaps good in many ways it was legally flawed from the start. Read the comments of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on same, quoted recently by Justice Alito.
Laws are made by legislatures. No one else makes laws.
Let’s at least start by being honest.
I strongly believe that abortion has an important place in our society but want to see it legalized through legislative means through a compromise that we can all live with despite neither side likely being totally satisfied.
Can we not agree that we need to discuss and compromise on something so important instead of running headlong to the far left (Anytime! Anywhere!) and the far right (Never! Not even for Rape!).
Who am I or any one of you to tell another woman what she can/ can’t do with her body. You don’t know her situation!! You don’t agree with abortion? Then don’t have one! It’s that simple.
How can anyone else not have an abortion….w/ someone else’s baby? That’s a logistically impossible notion.
Thanks for your feedback. We are having our researcher review the information for an update to this article. The citation goes back to the 1980s, so that was obviously a different era. We appreciate you bringing this important aspect to your attention. To answer your second question, obviously babies infected with HIV are incapable of sin in any case. If born with HIV it is due to transmission, in any case, certainly through no fault of his/her own.
As for your comments on providing for a child (healthcare access) or a disabled child (more cost), etc. our position starts at the beginning. We would love to clarify our position as an apostolate of the Catholic Church. Man is made in God’s image. Once that child has been conceived, he/she has a right to be born. No one but God has a right to end a pregnancy. These days the old excuse “save a women’s health” is actually only the case in less than 1% of cases, the rest qualify mainly in the category, sadly, of convenience, i.e. abortion on demand used as birth control. So the Church states – and we fully support the Catholic Church – that if you do not want the child, let it live. We have people all over the world diocese by diocese who will take in the child. You say adoption is not humane but killing is worse. Think of even a second trimester abortion where the child is dismembered, after its heart is stopped and the brains sucked out – thou shalt not kill. Every person has the right to Life, this is so-called natural law that is above every man-made law. It has nothing to do with Christianity, actually. Every person innately knows that it is wrong to kill, and we are merely protecting the right of the unborn child, who is weak and defenseless and cannot fight back.
It is a sad sign of the Godlessness our society has embraced when people champion their belief that women have the “constitutional right” to murder their own baby while still in the womb.
No matter how you spin it, parse it or twist the wording around… murder, is murder, is murder.
The underlying problem has nothing to do with sinister minded people devilishly seeking ways to destroy human life. No, as with most things on this Earth the real problem is a desire to do what one wants and accept no responsibility for the consequences. By that I mean, have sex with whoever, whenever and however “we” want and not have to trouble “ourselves” with such inconveniances as pregnancy or children. Yes, the common belief that murder is “a constitutional right” is ultimately based on SELFISHNESS! Just like every other evil thing done on this Earth, selfishness is the root cause.
The TRUTH is:
-You don’t have the right to have sex with anyone/ anything you want.
-Sex is a priveledge given by God to MARRIED COUPLES ONLY. Also, sex in the marriage must remain between the husband and wife only- no one else.
-Any other sex will condemn your soul to an eternity in hell.
Our society doesn’t want to hear this because it is inconveniant and an impediment to self satisfaction.
To quote a friend of mine, “it does matter anyway because our country is swirling the toilet bowl as we speak. I just hope I’m not around when we finally flush.”
Keep religion out of it. YOUR personal religious belief should have absolutely no bearing on someone else’s decisions! If any form of God exists, then those making any decision can answer for it when their time comes. I don’t believe you were appointed to handle that judgment
By that same logic, a newborn can’t live without an adult/mother to care for it. It can’t fend for itself in or out of the womb. And where did this notion that until a baby takes a breath it isn’t alive come from? When I was pregnant, not once did I think that this growth in my belly was anything but a living baby. No way. My baby was moving, kicking and had hiccups. It’s not like they were going to become some kind of tumor or cyst. People like to call it a fetus or a “cluster of cells”. If you just have a cluster of cells in your uterus, then you aren’t pregnant. Pregnancy means you’ve got a baby growing inside you.
I think it is important to note that the Court in Roe v. Wade ruled that a fetus is not included in the definition of “person” according to the 14th Amendment. The majority even points out in Roe that if personhood for the fetus is established “the appellant’s case collapses, for the fetus’ rights to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” It’s a sad misunderstanding of basic medical knowledge: A fetus is unquestionably a person.
Hey @Coles C. Not sure if you will ever read this post but wanted to say that is a diplomatic way of educating people you have my respect.
so out of curiosity, if you were in a burning building and there were 1,000 fertilized embryos, and one screaming child. what would you pick? because according to your logic, you would save the fertilized embryos because it would be saving more “children” than the one standing in front of you. think about that
To be pro-life means we would want to rescue them all, the 1000 pregnant women and the young child.
I’m pretty certain Stephanie is referring to a tray of frozen embryos vs. 1 child.
Susan, I’ll reiterate that being pro-life, we wouldn’t wish anyone to die, we would want to save all. Science tells us a human embryo or human fetus is an actual human being, a genetically unique, newly existing, growing human individual. As such, this life is worthy of protection.
Sadly, a firefighter or first responder might need to make a judgement about the best approach to take in order to save the greatest number of individuals, knowing that based on circumstances not all can be saved. However, he doesn’t avoid saving a life because one is deemed “less than” another; he desires to save them all.
That is a great question. I have never saw it put that way . I would of course save the screaming child. Wonder why they never answered your question hmm 🤔.
We would absolutely wish to save the crying child. The example suggests an embryo (or 1000!) is “less than”. If allowed to grow, a fertilized embryo will become a little boy or girl. (The morality of in vitro fertilization is another important issue, and had these lives not been left on hold in a freezer, this question about what to do with them would need not come up.) All life is precious, from conception until natural death. Life is not only under attack at its very beginnings, but also at its end, and in between under certain circumstances. Would the example sit as well if instead the choice was 1000 advanced-aged persons (or 1000 children with Downs Syndrome, or 1000 persons of a certain race…) and one crying child, who would you save? Because all life is a gift from God our creator, every life is sacred and should be cherished.
Hey, I’m a man so I recognize I should keep a low profile in this forum but I do have views. I agree with you and would bet ALL first responders would run past every single embryo to save the screaming child. Very revealing question though.
so out of curiosity, if you were in a burning building and there were 1,000 fertilized embryos, and one screaming child. what would you pick? because according to your logic, you would save the fertilized embryos because it would be saving more “children” than the one standing in front of you. think about that
Dependency does not eliminate humanity!
During a life threatening crisis, humans that lack “Do Not Resuscitate” orders are expected to be kept alive by professional hospital staff. A determining factor is whether extraordinary life-sustaining technologies are necessary. Often times, even extraordinary technologies are implemented when knowledge of a DNR is not immediately evident. Intubation of a patient’s airway is a rather common ER procedure. Basic nutritional sustenance through a PEG feeding tube is not extraordinary, while a ventilator is.
I seriously doubt that nutrition and oxygen provided by a God/nature created umbilical cord is considered extraordinary life support. Withholding basic life support is cruel and inhumane by Western civilized standards, notwithstanding the immorality of violently and proactively killing of an “innocent” new human life in utero. I have yet to observe a human fetus provide a Do Not Resuscitate request, so withholding basic life support is anathema to any other accepted medical care I am aware of.
Lastly, the Roe v Wade decision that legislated from the bench is clearly unconstitutional.
You know how I know you are uneducated? It’s the FOURTEENTH amendment that makes abortion legal. Not the fourth. Can’t get a simple thing right.
Abortion has been justified as a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. You might be confusing the thinking of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, which uses the Fourteenth.
Argument after argument refers back to G-d. Even the ones who call it murder refer to a fetus being made in God’s image. You, who also cry religious freedom at every opportunity when you don’t like something such as baking a cake for a gay couple, are trying to pose your will on every single human being in this country. Our laws are not based on your religious beliefs and you have no legal or constitutional right to force anyone to live by your morality and your belief in G-d. In my religion we don’t write G-d out of respect. So from now on should everyone be forced to do that? Before you decide to assume anything about me, I would never have had an abortion (In am in my 50s so too old now for that to be an issue). I am also the mother of an adopted child so I am grateful that the birth mom didn’t terminate her pregnancy. However, what is right for me is not right for everyone and it is wrong to impose my morality in anyone. And if you truly believe in G-d, then you should know, your actions are between you and G-d and no one else. Frankly this does fall under privacy and this article gives the exact reason why. Because ultimately this is a medical procedure and is constitutionally protected by the right to privacy between a doctor and patient.
You do know that it is bit that easy to adopt. You have to go through a lot of steps to be approved., However, I know a lot of foster children who need permanent homes. Can you send the list of all these Dioceses across the world who will take these unwanted children and we can start making arrangements to help them.
Doesn’t anyone remember a time before abortion was legalized? if Roe v Wade is overturned, abortion will return to the dark days of back rooms, coat hangers, and chemicals. It will not stop abortion. Even if a law is passed to make abortion illegal, how will they prove it happened? Natural abortions happen all of the time. Women that want their babies still miscarriage. Are we then going to arrest them and make them prove that they didn’t do it on purpose? Come on people, think. Read your histories. Abortion should not be an election point.
Initially, I agreed with your point because making it illegal will not prevent people from having abortions, and they would have to choose more barbaric options. However, to be logically consistent and apply that reasoning to other activities: should homicide or theft be legalized? Making it illegal certainly has not stopped it. But by making it against the law, I do believe it has prevented a lot of people from engaging in murder or stealing due to fear of the consequences. So it seems to still have an overall beneficial effect on society to have laws against harmful actions, even if they are not 100% enforceable.
Regarding the religious arguments that it is forcing religion upon someone to classify a fetus as a living being: the point at which life begins seems to be more of a scientific determination than a religious one. The point of conception being the most defining and clearly recognizeable threshold in the entire process. Either the egg is fertilized or it is not. After fertilization, there are many sorts of misfortunes that can afflict human development, so it becomes harder to pick a certain bodily function as being the point at which life has begun.
Other than cases of rape, it’s not like pregnancy is forced upon anybody. It’s simply a very large risk with sexual activity. Why not just be responsible, and be prepared to accept the consequences of our actions? I suppose it’s because we can be temporarily overcome with lust and lose control of ourselves that it seems we have been forced. In a sense, we have been. But the same can be said about some murderers being under the influence of extreme anger and getting carried away.
Killing a reptile is generally seen as less bad than killing a mammal. Reptiles are harder for us to relate to than mammals are. Fetuses are also quite unfamiliar to us, as people are generally babies by the time we see them. Both babies and toddlers are both human beings, just at different stages of development. It’s not a switch that is flipped, but gradual imperceptable changes over time. When is the precise moment in time a human is no longer a baby, but a toddler? Likewise, when is someone a baby and no longer a fetus? Is it when they take their first breath? Seems logical. But since we can surgically remove a baby before it is due, and induce breath, was it not a sufficiently developed human being at that time? Had the operation been delayed, would the determination change? It seems to me that if so, we are depending too much on changeable circumstantial conditions to define what being human is.
Definitely a complex issue, and one that has a lot of emotion involved on both sides.
Just my 2 cents.
Suicide should definitely be legal. The state has no business telling people that they can’t end their life.
A fetus is not a person. Not yet.
A fetus isn’t a person? Based on what?
Downright sickening! So, you can kill the baby because the baby is called a fetus instead. Fetus basically means not dead but not alive yet according to the many statements given. Well, answer me this then, how is it that the scientific community spends billions of dollars every year looking for life on other planets and they define life as being at least a one cell organism. But, a child from the moment of conception has thousands of cells and somehow that’s not life? Just tell the truth instead of sidestepping. You just want to murder and that’s the truth.
God said he knew the baby when it was in the mothers womb. He knitted the baby’s bones. So, what will God do to the abortionists and the mothers who get one? Ten Commandments say the you shall not kill. It doesn’t say how old the baby is in its mothers womb when it comes to being aborted (murdered).
Hello, James, just like God knew the baby before they were born, he knew the parents as well. He is a God who know all and just like he got up on the cross for all of your sins He did it for their sins as well. The abortion was one of the things he got up on the cross for. And if they have received Christ as their Lord and Savior they are forgiven.
The Ten Commandments also state that thou shalt not commit adultery and thou shalt not covet. So what will God do to those who do?
Abortion is unconstitutional in all 50 states because it does the opposite of securing the blessings of liberty to our Posterity, as required by the Preamble. This direct reading of the Constitution trumps any interpretation based on the 4th Amendment.
my problem with the “right to choose what happens to my body” arguement is this, if it is your body it will be your DNA in that part of your body. But in an aborted baby l it is not . its part yours and part the fathers making it a lifeform of its own. .It is not a part of the mother, the mother is simply the vessel it grows in.
thanks everyone for yours comments… really makes you think.
We are here on this earth after an incomprehensible complicated journey from the beginning of time itself, because of an almighty creator of all things and universes. We have been given the free will to choose our life and path as adults, even the freedom to decide if we want to believe in a creator or anything else we can imagine. We make choices to serve ourselves, our needs, our wants and sometimes to serve others. Because we are given choices and because we are all capable of making the wrong choice, there are consequences/reactions to every action we take and every choice we make. You are free to commit murder of another human, murder the unborn child inside you and also end your own life if you choose to, but you very well will reap what you sew in more than one way, physically, mentally and spiritually it will happen and you have no choice in the matter as there will be a reaction. Mankind’s manufactured laws can improve as well as remove our freedoms, deter our choices, but few things provide 100% protection from ourselves except for our Conscience which our creator has put within us as an inner sense of wrong and right behavior/DNA. Not to be confused by the Conscience which is formed by our own earthly wisdoms. Simply you feel and know what is right and wrong. If you are out of touch with those feelings you likely are in need of some life changes. The real and ultimate final reaction to our actions, is when our lives are over and done and our choices are accounted for and determine our next journey after living our lives on this planet. You may choose not to recognize an after-life or believe there will be no consequences for our actions, but you may also be wrong as we most often are. If we do not recognize the enormous importance of the creation of life and the very second a mother’s blood is being drawn to form an innocent human being in the womb. (The fruit is always present in the seed) To forbid birth and destroy a human fetus is only a quicker murder. There is no time limit, no level of unimportance at the beginning of life. All the witty life scenarios defending abortion we come up with do not take precedence over the beginning of life itself. The beginning of a human life. Every molecular particle is Devine. We only choose to make our own rules, our own laws, determine what is good or bad as we all serve ourselves. We choose the reasons or it is chosen for us on this earth. Afterwards you have no choice which is why there is only one Truth, one path, in all the things we do and decide upon. Staying on that path of truth as much as possible is asked of us by our very own DNA, our very own Conscience. Defend that path called Love and love all things alive and unborn, unconditionally with all the compassion you can offer, no excuses, scenarios etc. When we serve ourselves instead of our almighty Creator God/Life itself, we leave that path to the light and become lost souls in darkness. Making good choices is key, but making the one and only truthful choice is what we are intended to do.
This is a little off topic and avoids the legal question of abortion. But it’s my story. Almost universally every person that is alive if asked, “Do you wish you had never been born?” will respond no. So somehow thinking one is doing the unborn child a favor by having an abortion because the child will be born into less than ideal circumstances is misguided reasoning. My girlfriend became pregnant when we were dating in the 1960’s. Abortion wasn’t even a consideration. We’ve been married now for over 50 years with three children and seven grandchildren. One of our seven grandchildren is adopted because her mother recognized she could not care for her child and agreed to adoption. A quick Google search indicates there are at least as many people seeking adoption as there are abortions in our country. I cannot imagine a more tortuous decision for a woman than deciding to have an abortion. I am grateful for the decision two women made that has so profoundly enriched my life. I think more should consider adoption with an unwanted pregnancy regardless if abortion is legal or not.
Thank you for sharing, Art. God bless you and your beautiful family for your witness to Life.
You raise good points, James. It’s also interesting to note the English term, fetus, derives from the Latin word, fetus, meaning offspring, or the bearing or bringing forth of young.
i must admit that all of the individual comments being posted give reason for a person to stop and ponder this issue.
but in my humble opinion all of these problems would never arise if those consenting to procede in mating had taken a moment and use contraceptives, condoms, iud, the pill, norplant, foam, vaginal ring, diaphram etc. just a few of the options avaialable most can be obtained by individuals at county health dept. family planing, womens clinics, schools, universitys etc, etc. i guess it all boils down to being a responsible person.
may god have mercy on our nation……
sorry about the spelling.
ABORTION IS A SIN!! The fetus is a gift of life from GOD! When our founding fathers established the CONSTITUTION, they did not include abortion in the Constitution as our founding fathers know IT IS A SIN, and it’s evident in #6 of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS that GOD gave to Moses, and this Ten Commandments serve as an architecture or a guide, on how He wants to live His people before His presence, and the Women totally violated this Commandment of GOD. When a woman got pregnant and IS NOT MARRIED, here alone, she already committed two (2) sins, F SHE’S NOT MARRIED:
1) fornication as she’s not married; 2) she committed murder by killing her child when she opts for an abortion.
The Coming of the LORD JESUS Christ is just around the corner, a majority of the Prophetic Signs that Jesus gave us while He was still in this world and was with his disciples, Jesus gave us so many prophetic signs, for us to be aware of His Second Coming. Jesus said, “LOOK UP, AND KEEP WATCH! AS WHEN ALL THESE SIGNS ARE HAPPENING, BE SURE MY COMING IS NEAR!” There’s just a handful of the prophetic signs left and this will happen right before Jesus Christ will finally set foot here on earth.
After the battle between Jesus Christ and the Antichrist is over, those who do not belong to Jesus Christ, will be throw in the fiery lak of burning sulfur (HELL) by the armies of angels of GOD. And those who were ready when He came, are the ones that He will bring in the New Earth that the Father GOD created, and Jesus will reign in this New Earth for a millinium years. TO GOD BE THE GLORY, HONOR, AND PRAISES, FOREVER AND EVER. AMEN+++
If a fetus is not a life than why when a pregnant woman is murdered does the murderer get charged with 2 murders? I regret the abortion I had 50 years ago when I was 17. I saw the tiny fetus and it was a visually and completely human baby, not a collection of cells. I still think about him today at 67.
You make great points, Peggy. We share your sorrow and applaud your courage in speaking out.
No one is ” pro-abortion.” You distort Obama. He is “pro-choice,” the correct position.
I did not read all of the postings but read enough that I plead to all, never ever consider running for public office or seek employment at a local, state or federal government level position.
Common sense is not so common.
The best advice for anyone to understand law and have all of your questions answered is to read the number one best selling book of all time. It is imperative that one read from the first page to understand each chapter to the end. The end is the most important lesson you will ever need to know about life and death.