The right to life of unborn children should be protected under international law

Both human embryos and human fetuses are unborn human beings that are separate from their mothers, and as such have a right to life under the natural moral law. What makes a human fetus or a human embryo a separate human being from his or her mother is the fact that he or she has an unique genetic makeup that is distinct from his or her mother, the fact that he or she will usually develop into a fully formed human being that is capable of survival outside of his or her mother’s body if he or she is not killed prior to birth, the fact that his or her genetic makeup is of the same kind as that of human beings who have been born, and the fact that he or she will usually develop a complete set of organs that are separate from that of his or her mother prior to birth.

The right to life of persons who have been born is currently recognized under international law and under the laws of most countries in the world and is generally recognized to be a fundamental right with respect to persons who have been born, but unborn children have been deprived of this right to life under the laws of some of the countries of the world due to the legalization of abortion in these countries. An unborn child’s right to life should be legally protected under international law and under the laws of each country because unborn children are human beings and were so from the moment of conception, because the right to life is not limited to human beings who have been born, and because the right to life is a fundamental and universal right that is derived from natural moral law. Abortion should be outlawed worldwide and international rights organizations should not force countries to keep abortion legal because abortion by its very nature involves the killing of an unborn human being, because a right to abortion is in conflict with the right to life of unborn children, because the right to life of unborn children is more fundamental than a woman’s right to an abortion, and because the right to life of unborn children is a fundamental, universal right that is derived from natural moral law.

Why abortion should become illegal in the United States and why babies with severe fetal abnormalities should not be aborted

Some of the women who have had abortions after 20 weeks oppose the 20-week bans being proposed in Congress and in some of the state legislatures because these women felt that they needed to have an abortion after 20 weeks. However, not all of the women who choose to have abortions after 20 weeks choose to do so out of mere convenience to the mother, and the major reasons why women choose to have abortions after 20 weeks include severe fetal abnormalities, severe complications of pregnancy, changes in economic situations in the middle of a pregnancy, and pregnancies discovered after the first trimester. In addition, some of the abortions that are performed after 20 weeks involve pregnancies and aborted babies that were previously wanted by their mothers, and many of these abortions involve babies that were diagnosed with severe fetal abnormalities that could not be detected until after the 17th week of pregnancy.

Although it is understandable why some of the women who have had abortions after 20 weeks chose to have an abortion after 20 weeks and why some of these women would be opposed to a 20-week-ban on abortion, there are good reasons why abortion should become illegal in the United States. First and foremost, abortion by its very nature involves the killing of an unborn human being and always violates a right to life that should not have been taken away from unborn human beings. Second, a pregnant woman who decides to undergo an abortion is usually aware that an abortion will result in the death of an unborn human being. Third, the fact that a pregnancy will normally result in the birth of a child if it is not aborted is usually essential to a woman’s decision to undergo an abortion. Fourth, the majority of women who undergo abortions choose to do so with the intention of causing the death of their unborn child. Finally, the government has legitimate governmental interests that justify the prohibition of abortion.

While it is understandable that some of the women who are pregnant with an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality do not want their children to suffer from these defects and even though it is understandable why some of these women would want to abort an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality, the abortion of an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality cannot be morally justified because such an abortion is normally done with the intention of causing the death of the unborn child, because such an abortion is always inherently ordered by its very nature towards causing the death of the unborn child, and because such an abortion is always an intrinsically evil act that is always contrary to natural law and the law of God.

In addition to being morally wrong and morally unjustifiable, there are other major issues with the decision to abort an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality. First, there is the possibility that an healthy unborn child will be killed as a result of such an abortion. Second, such an abortion might involve the risk of serious complications to the mother. Third, the decision to abort an unborn child that is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality can still be emotionally painful for the mother. Fourth, an abortion might be very painful for an unborn child who is being aborted, but the natural death of an child who is born with a severe fetal abnormality is not always painful to the child. Fifth, any physical pain that might be felt in children who are born with a severe fetal abnormality might be able to be effectively managed through the use of painkillers. Furthermore, the choice to abort an unborn child who is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality sends the message that the child is not unconditionally loved by his or her mother, even though the mother of such a child might believe that it is a compassionate or loving choice. Finally, the choice to have a baby who is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality born alive sends the positive message that the child is unconditionally loved by his or her parents, despite a severe fetal abnormality.

While that there are some individuals who believe that abortion-on-demand should remain legal and that women should continue to have a right to an abortion, there are legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortion, and abortion should become illegal again in the United States. First and foremost, the government has “legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child,” and these legitimate interests have already been acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. Second, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting an unborn child who might be born alive as a result of a failed abortion against any irreversible harm that might result from such an attempt. Third, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting unborn children against any pain that might be experienced during an abortion procedure. Fourth, the legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortions that are not “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” are compelling enough to justify banning abortions that are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Furthermore, an unborn child already has a right to be protected against being killed illegally against the will of his or her mother under fetal homicide laws that exist in 38 states. Finally, unborn children should have a legally protected right to life that should never have been taken away from unborn children in the first place.

The United States Supreme Court should uphold laws that prohibit abortion – Part 2

The United States Supreme Court had decided in Roe v. Wade that “state criminal abortion laws … that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy.” However, the United States Supreme Court had also decided in Roe v. Wade that “The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one’s body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court’s decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.” In addition, the United States Supreme Court also “conclude[d] that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation,” decided that “the pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy,” and also ruled that “the woman’s privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly” in the Roe v. Wade case. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court also ruled in Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, that “if the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”

While the United States Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion that laws that prohibit abortion were unconstitutional under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment on the grounds that the prohibition of abortion impermissibly violates a pregnant woman’s right to privacy, the fact that a pregnant woman has a right to privacy should not have been sufficient to render laws that prohibit abortion unconstitutional because a pregnant woman does not have an absolute right to privacy and also because “governmental intrusion” involving a decision to undergo an abortion is not necessarily “unwarranted” because an abortion by its very nature involves the killing of an unborn human being. In addition, there are acts that are still illegal to commit in the privacy of one’s own home or in other places where there is an expectation of privacy, including but not limited to murder, assault, child abuse, identity theft, wire fraud, mail fraud, incest, rape, statutory rape, the sexual abuse of a minor, illegal sexual relations between a teacher and a student, the possession of child pornography, the production of child pornography, the illegal possession of controlled substances, and the abuse of controlled substances, and the laws prohibiting these acts are not unconstitutional on the grounds that a person has a right to privacy or on the grounds that these acts are committed in places where there is an expectation of privacy. Furthermore, even though a woman generally has a legal right to abortion and contraception in the United States, the law still imposes restrictions on a woman’s right to decide on “whether to bear or beget a child” because a woman cannot legally choose to engage in sexual intercourse with an underage boy and because a woman cannot legally choose to engage in sexual intercourse with closely related individuals such as her brother, her father, or her son.

In the Roe v. Wade ruling, the United States Supreme Court decided that “for the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” However, the United States Supreme Court also effectively legalized abortion-on-demand in Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, by broadly defining “health of the mother” as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the [mother],” and Justice William Douglas will also state in his concurring opinion of Doe v. Bolton that “the right to privacy” encompasses “the right to care for one’s health.” Furthermore, even though the United States Supreme Court required that abortions that are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the health of the mother” be legal during all nine months of pregnancy, the definition of health is not contained within the text of the United States Constitution, and the text of the United States Constitution does not make any kind of distinction between abortions that are not needed for the preservation of the health of the mother and abortions that are necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother, at least with respect to abortions that are not essential to preventing the death of the mother. Finally, the legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortion after viability are compelling enough to even justify prohibiting abortions that are deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother, including governmental interests that were not acknowledged during the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases.

The Roe v. Wade decision should be reversed, even if some people are opposed to its reversal, for several reasons. First, the government has a compelling interest in protecting both the life of an unborn child and the health of the mother during all nine months of pregnancy, and this compelling interest has even been acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in the final ruling of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. Second, human life has already begun at the stages of pregnancy at which abortions are performed because human life begins at the moment of conception, and this fact is supported by both objective scientific fact and legal precedent. Third, our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn human beings, despite the fact that this right had been taken away from unborn children as a result of the Roe v. Wade decision, and the 14th Amendment was not intended to affect laws that prohibit abortion. Fourth, the fact that a woman has a right to privacy does not necessarily imply that a pregnant woman must have a right to an abortion because a woman does not have an absolute right to privacy and because a woman’s own privacy is not the only thing at stake in an decision to undergo an abortion. Fifth, the United States Supreme Court relied on false statements made by Sarah Weddington (the attorney representing plaintiff Norma McCorvey in Roe v. Wade) and Margie Pitts Hames (the attorney representing plaintiff Sandra Cano in Doe v. Bolton) in order to arrive at its conclusions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Sixth, many issues have arisen since the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases that necessitate revisiting these two decisions, including but not limited to the dangers of abortion procedures to the lives and to the health of the women who undergo abortions and the danger of irreversible harm to babies who have survived failed abortions. Finally, the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton will allow states to enact laws that protect the right to life of unborn children, which is an unalienable right that should never have been taken away from unborn children.

The United States Supreme Court should uphold laws that prohibit abortion – Part 1

The United States Supreme Court should uphold laws that prohibit abortion, even though the United States Supreme Court had legalized abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy for any reason in the United States, because laws that prohibit abortion protect the right to life of unborn children, which should have never been taken away in the first place, and also because the government has other legitimate interests that justify the prohibition of abortion. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has already decided that “the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child” in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case, and these legitimate governmental interests would be furthered by laws that prohibit or regulate abortion procedures. Additionally, our founding fathers clearly intended for the constitutionally guaranteed right to life to extend to unborn children and did not intend to restrict the right to life to persons who have been born, and this position can be found in James Wilson’s Lectures on Law and William Blackstone’s Commentaries.

Despite the common argument that the Roe v. Wade ruling should not be reversed under the principle of stare decisis, the United States Supreme Court has already reversed prior United States Supreme Court rulings in cases involving federal constitutional law on matters other than abortion, and as such should reverse the Roe v. Wade decision if laws that prohibit abortion are permissible under the United States Constitution. If laws that prohibit abortion are indeed constitutionally permissible in the United States, then the United States Supreme Court should never have legalized abortion through the Roe v. Wade decision because Roe v. Wade was decided on the premise that laws that prohibit abortion are not constitutionally permissible under the United States Constitution. Furthermore, justices of the United States Supreme Court should not be blindly opposed to reversing the Roe v. Wade decision, and should be willing to do so if the United States Supreme Court determines that the prohibition of abortion is permissible under the existing provisions of the United States Constitution or if an amendment to the United States Constitution that allows the prohibition of abortion is ratified.

In order to answer the question of whether laws prohibiting abortion are constitutionally permissible under the United States Constitution, one needs to understand where our founding fathers and the authors of the 14th Amendment stood on the right to life of unborn children. First, our founding fathers said in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Second, our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn children, and James Wilson, one of the founding fathers who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, will say the following in his Lectures on Law: “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.” Third, both the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution state that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Fourth, at least 20 states had laws prohibiting abortion that were enacted prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment and that remained in effect until the Roe v. Wade decision on January 22, 1973, and the 14th Amendment was never intended to affect these laws. Finally, the United States Supreme Court incorrectly decided that the right to life did not extend to unborn children in the final decision of the Roe v. Wade decision, even though our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn children and even though the 14th Amendment was not intended to affect laws that prohibited abortion.

Even though United States Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun stated that “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins” in the Roe v. Wade decision, the United States Supreme Court has already made admissions that imply that human life begins prior to birth and that human life has already begun at the stages of pregnancy at which abortions are performed in cases involving the issue of abortion.  In fact, Justice Blackmun himself will admit in Colautti v. Franklin that abortion “result[s] in the death of the fetus,” and Justice Lewis Powell, who also supported the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, will also admit the same in Simopoulos v. Virginia. Additionally, Justice Potter Stewart, another supporter of both the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, will admit that “abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life” in the Harris v. McRae Supreme Court decision. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court had referred to the “life of the fetus that may become a child” as life in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. Finally, Justice Antonin Scalia will admit that abortion involves the “killing [of] a human child” in the Stenburg v. Carhart case.