WhatFinger


Supreme Court has declared that Life does not begin until some predetermined week into the pregnancy. However, this argument can be stifled with the honest answer to a single question: If it is alive and human, then is it not Human Life

The Supreme Court and Abortion



The Supreme Court and Abortion This is not a new view or concept. However, it is novel and specific enough for many people to cause the dense-minded among them to blink and wonder, “Why didn’t I think about that?” Remember that many old and popular sayings are a great part of American culture and tradition. One that the Constitution guarantees every individual is so common that probably nearly everyone has heard it at one time or another. It is this: The Constitution’s purpose, as pertains to each person, is to guarantee everyone “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

If it is alive and human, then is it not Human Life

At one time, the latter part of that word grouping was different, I’ve read. It was then stated that the guarantee was for “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property” but for some reason, it was ultimately changed from Pursuit of Property into the word Happiness. There are some who may tend to link the two together. For example, some people apparently believe that without property, there is no happiness. Suffice it to say that it is what it is today and as it stands, it seems to incorporate all that is important, in a worldly way, to the majority of people in this country. Now, when we scrutinize that saying or collection of words, we see that they hang together; they are mutually inclusive since without one of those words, the value, quality and importance of the saying lose much of their meaning. Furthermore, as relates to Abortion, consider this: If not for Life, where can the Constitution guarantee Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness since there is no life? Therefore, Life is essential to the fulfillment of the whole: Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. How, then, can the Supreme Court stand proud and confident that it has defined this element of the Constitution when they have removed Life from this essential element of the Constitution by singling out Life and summarily excluding it from those who are aborted? At this point, there will be cries from those who believe in Abortion as a choice and, in some cases, “as a way of life” (for them, at least)... They point out that the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, has declared that Life does not begin until some predetermined week into the pregnancy. However, this argument can be stifled with the honest answer to a single question: If it is alive and human, then is it not Human Life? Most eighth graders can understand this. No need to interpret this to anyone who is able to communicate coherently in English. Any questions about this concept directly relates to individual, personal beliefs and not on true, basic honesty. Many will not accept anything but Abortion on Demand because this relieves them of the responsibility of being complicit in the ending of a life and, specifically, an innocent life. Why, they have the Supreme Court behind them, don’t they? I wonder how the Abortion Decisions by the Supreme Court will be explained at the final Court where they will have to bow to Supreme Authority. Will their black robes then have any significance?

Support Canada Free Press




View Comments

Bob Lunsford -- Bio and Archives

Mr. Lunsford is a retired DoD telecommunications engineer, linguist and world traveler now living in eastern Kentucky. Still active in radio communications, he has several books copyrighted, one of which is now in final process of publication. He is politically motivated and, as much as possible, politically active.


Sponsored