LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN

II. The Supreme Court Ruling of 1973 was wrong.

(The Supreme Court effectively denied, without comment or medical discussion on the life of the fetus.) They simply stated,

" . . . We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer . . ."

(The Court refused to go any further, or to comment on the 63 pages of evidence and the hundreds of experts who testified that life's beginning at conception is a foregone biological fact.) Supreme Court Ruling Roe v. Wade. p. 41 (RULING ON THE LIFE OF THE FETUS)

A. The unborn person is indeed a person.

ARGUMENT #1

"The unborn child is not considered a person as the 14th Amendment understands the term and is therefore not entitled to constitutional protection to his/her life.

RESPONSES:

1. The decision completely ignores, without ONE SINGLE MEDICAL COMMENT, the mountain of evidence proving the reality of the unborn being as human.

2. Historical perspective points out that the framers and changers of the constitution equated human being with person; therefore person in the 14th Amendment definitely must include the unborn.

3. Majority opinion concludes that "life does not begin until birth." No evidence of any kind is utilized to support this assertion.

4. A contradiction occurs in that the majority opinion uses an evolutionary concept of the Constitution in stating that the decision holds with the demands of today: and a traditionalist static view of the same document in their arguments that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not want to include the unborn as humans. ROE V. WADE, DOE V. BOLTON. Decision and arguments.

[To be continued . . .]