Roe verses Wade should be overturned because the Constitution doesn't define when a unborn child becomes a person. It doesn't address it at all. It talks about citizenship but, not when a human life begins. Without that information they couldn't judge between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child. It isn't a Supreme Court judges place to decide what the Constitution should define as the point when a human life begins. They are to interpret the Constitution not write additions to it.
These Judges would have been just as wrong if they had declared that human life began at conception. The Constitution doesn't say that either. What they should have done is refused to make a judgement either way because the Constitution doesn't address the issue directly or indirectly.
The burden to define the beginning of a human life should be in the hands of the elected legislators in each State until such a time that there is a consensus which would allow a constitutional amendment.
|