What a woman does with her body is her privacy, her concern. Yet some call her concern an argument for abortion.
The problem: Privacy is a weak argument. Consider this fact: A pregnant woman has another human within her that needs nurturing, not summarily-caused death. That shows privacy is an extremely weak argument when one kills a fetus.
All know a human fetus grows into a human being.
Who protects an unborn baby, if not the mother? By having abortion, a would-be mother is not a protector. An abortion is a final solution with no appeal. This is the exact point at which the state should intervene as protector. Notice: all 50 states prior to 1973 were protectors.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, supposedly based its decision on a concern for privacy. Yet privacy is not a word to be found in the U.S. Constitution. Those justices reached a conclusion so preposterous or nonsense at its best, that it reeks to high heaven. A nonsense allowing abortion never envisioned by the writers of the U.S. Constitution.
Roe v. Wade was and is a terrible blot on U.S. juris prudence and must be reversed and struck from law.
Slavery, at one time, was law of the land but ultimately reversed. To, too, abortion shall be reversed.
Justices Rehnquist and White opposed the majority opinion and the future will show them correct; read their opinions.
Listen carefully! “A house divided shall not stand, it will inherit the wind.” That wind is blowing; a wind to blow away the stench and blot of error.
One day, if division continues, you might hear, “Please allow me to kill my husband, as long as I do it privately.” What utter nonsense. How sad can it get?