On December 1, the Supreme Court will consider the question, “Whether all possible injunctions prior to elective abortion are unconstitutional.”
Like the fake question, “When do you stop hitting your wife?” this is very question preloaded with an invalid assumption.
The rules of logic tell us that there is no such thing as a truly pre-existing human being. As long as I’ve lived and grown purposefully in the womb and haven’t been born or had an abortion, I’ll be able to live right where I am – not possible first.
The real question to be considered here is, “Is any elective abortion constitutional?”
Now retired, after a lifetime of studying the philosophy and language of human rights, I will humbly be cautious. Supreme Court judge to focus on the real question.
Caution number 1
Read a lot of articles in favor of abortion submit Before the Court in connection with this case, I will first warn the judges against getting caught up in the prolific alarmism presented therein – beware of all the alleged ill consequences for women. female if Roe v. Wade was exposed.
NS support abortion stinging rhetoric with dire warnings about the harm to be done to women denied the “right” to kill their tiny living daughters and sons in utero.
But here the Court must assert the common truth that harm was done intentionally what the founders called “child in mother’s womb“It cannot be justified by the time constraints that might befall the mother of the child if her child is protected from being killed.
Like other serious hardships we all face in our lives, selective murder is not an option. We will have to problem solving, do not kill the child.
Caution No. 2
The Supreme Court’s first mandate is to interpret the law that protects the right to life of all members of “our posterity”. The lawful killing of innocents is never consistent with upholding the basic principles of structure.
Judges must be careful to limit themselves to the interpretation of the law, sticking to the actual laws of the Constitution.
The right or wrong of any controversial activity being tested for its constitutionality will become the Supreme Court’s primary concern.
NS Roe v. Wade The 1973 court did not have the constitutional authority to introduce a new law that removed the protection of the law from defenseless innocent children who were targeted for the willful murder of the mothers of those who died. abortion.
Justice Harry Blackmun, looking at abortion law from Roe and Wade’s point of view, made a fundamental mistake in classifying certain human beings as property. This mistake is very similar to that of Chief Justice Roger Taney in 1856 in the case of Dred Scott sues John Sanford case.
Checking in slavery under the law, the dehumanized slaves of Taney called them “commodities” to exclude them from constitutional protection. He stated, “[I]It is unbelievable that these rights and privileges [in the Constitution] intended to be extended to them. “
Regrettably, at that time in Supreme Court history, most judges harbored a distinct sympathy for slave owners and refused to correct an inherently wrong and cruel practice.
Caution number 3
Constitutional law is the Supreme Court’s most important job – the right or wrong of the kill innocent people.
Anticipating and assessing the future disadvantages of Roe overturns and how they can be improved, managed, or prevented is not the province of the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court judge not a social scientist or social worker or charity worker. They should not have the desire to solve the social problems of all pregnant women who do not want to get pregnant.
Will the Supreme Court finally overturn the Roe v. Wade case?
Yes: 84% (27 Votes)
No: 16% (5 Votes)
Unfortunately, today the “interest of reliance” dominates the majority of submissions in favor of abortion on the question of abortion currently being examined. Too much emphasis is placed on the difficulties that can arise for mothers if unborn children are once again constitutionally protected.
Historically, in Dred Scott’s decision, the Supreme Court allowed vested interests to block the reform of unjust laws.
Popular support for slavery is maintained on the basis that a group of people (slave owners) and all those who depend on them rely on their livelihood and well-being as the horrifying practice continues. Too many Americans have structured their lives around slave ownership and would be in trouble if that misbehavior out of law.
Taney asserts that “owners’ property rights should be protected” and cited the concern to prevent “injury and inconvenience to white people…” He said, “[T]his [slave] traffic is done openly, and fortunes are accumulated by it, without reproach from the people of the United States of America in which they reside. “
In refusing to undo what was so wrong, Taney gave too much weight and sympathy to the view that the outcome of hardship should have forced slavery to be abolished.
Now, as then, it is not the Court’s job to deal with the economic and social problems that can arise from fixing a bad law. It is the Court’s job to respect the law as enshrined in the Constitution.
Caution No. 4
Judges must not be misled by the false argument that the infallibility of any law is synonymous with the length of time it has operated.
Some of the worst and most unjust laws in human history have been ruthlessly applied for over 50 years. They never became fairer or fairer in the time period in which they were conditioned and conditioned.
Reason tells us that the length of time an unjust law remains unresolved puts pressure on us to remove the law, not break it again, in order to move on. defend it unreasonably.
Science and reason affirm that from the moment of conception, the life of every human being is physically an unbroken chain until it is severed by death alone.
The indisputable fact is that all elective abortions are performed on humans before birth.
Paradoxically, it is precisely because these tiniest human beings are able to survive (i.e., have the capacity to live and thrive) that the abortionist is tasked with destroying their ability to exist (i.e. killing them). ).
Roe sued Wade for distorting that age-old recognition of the obligation set forth in the Constitution’s preamble to guarantee the same liberties for our posterity as well as for ourselves.
Sooner or later, the truth must overturn false precedents – the sooner the better. The Supreme Court should take this opportunity to Roe . ditch.
First, they have to reinforce the scientific fact that the “fetus” targeted for abortion is a real human being, conceived and raised, really alive and able to exist precisely in the world. where she or he intends to live and grow up right here and now. in her or his womb.
The second truth is that precedents in law such as Roe v. Wade is not a mistake. The justices of the Supreme Court have a serious duty to detect and overturn faulty decisions like Roe’s without further delay.
Most judges have to have the courage to look at Roe’s mistakes honestly. If they fearlessly seek the truth, opinions will write themselves down.
Truth is powerful.
The abolition of slavery posed great problems for slave owner and their families and communities, who organized their livelihoods and their social and economic structures around the availability of slaves. However, Americans today have learned to live without slaves.
So, with intelligence and goodwill, we can all learn to live abortion-free, living by the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” We can all once again learn to marry and love faithfully and platonic, and care for our children, who will learn to live and love without “abortion”.
It is time for older generations to acknowledge our terrible mistakes and correct the excesses of the sexual revolution with all its devastating social consequences for our families and communities. we.
It’s time for a new generation to commit to implementing and passing on to their children a better way of life, one that is independent of any false right to harm their unborn children.
The views expressed in this article are those of their authors and are not necessarily shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission process and guidelines. here.
https://www.westernjournal.com/four-things-supreme-court-must-keep-mind-takes-abortion-question/ Here are four things the Supreme Court must keep in mind when it comes to the question of abortion