Roe vs. Wade Is Not Worth The Paper That It Written On

[ACCT]

The days of Roe vs. Wade are numbered. Roe vs. Wade is not worth the paper that it is written on. An unjust law is no law at all. The decision of the Supreme Court violates natural law. The legal veil that covers abortion was mistakenly recognized by the Supreme Court, and the decision will be overturned. The reason is simple. The Constitution and American history guarantee equal dignity to all people. The names differ, but at various times in our history people were deprived of their rights. The Supreme Court gave legal cover to these acts of violence; however, the Supreme Court always reversed itself. The most famous case that comes to mind is the Dred Scott decision, the slaveholder’s right to property.

There is no precedent on abortion in the law. However, that is not unusual. The Supreme Court has reversed itself many times, especially when new evidence is brought forth that someone’s rights, not previously recognized, were violated.

[ProVobis]

I keep getting emails from Rand Paul on this. Apparently the Supreme Court never really defined where life begins and left that matter to Congress, which it has never done.

[the 7th one]

Originally Posted by ACCT

The days of Roe vs. Wade are numbered. Roe vs. Wade is not worth the paper that it is written on. An unjust law is no law at all. The decision of the Supreme Court violates natural law. The legal veil that covers abortion was mistakenly recognized by the Supreme Court, and the decision will be overturned. The reason is simple. The Constitution and American history guarantee equal dignity to all people. The names differ, but at various times in our history people were deprived of their rights. The Supreme Court gave legal cover to these acts of violence; however, the Supreme Court always reversed itself. The most famous case that comes to mind is the Dred Scott decision, the slaveholder’s right to property.

There is no precedent on abortion in the law. However, that is not unusual. The Supreme Court has reversed itself many times, especially when new evidence is brought forth that someone’s rights, not previously recognized, were violated.

I hope and pray you are correct in your outlook. I fear the courts have been sliding away from natural and historical precidence, and headed for popular, media driven attention.
May Gos have mercy on us if I am right.

[ACCT]

Doesn’t abortion destroy a human life? If abortion destroys a human life, then abortion is about violence. It is about bloodshed, and it is about victims. The right to life for the unborn is absolute. We, as a nation, do not recognize those rights. The unborn are the invisible members of our society. We are called to stop the bloodshed of the most helpless members of our society. Abortion is about justice.

The law protects life, despite anyone’s theological beliefs or lack of religious beliefs. I want the protection of all human beings! The law does not care about beliefs. The law just regulates actions. Subjective religious beliefs do not determine the law, nor should it. There is such a thing as Truth with a capital “T.” However, the life of a baby should not hinge upon everyone acknowledging that truth. The freedom of choice and the freedom to be an unbeliever never give anyone the right to destroy others.

Who should receive protection under the law? Verifiable scientific evidence is the criteria to determine who receives protection under the law. That evidence exists. I do not think that even abortionists argue that the baby in the womb is not a baby. After all, we live in the age of fetoscopy and fetal surgery.

The bottom line is this: Human life needs protection now!