…then we have to revise some history in this country. We can’t go off the truth…but, we’ll get to that.

I had a discussion, of sorts, with some people recently who stated the “pro-choice” stance, as they understood it. They called it a right, that the baby doesn’t have its right to life until it’s born, and that most of it rested on the fact that the location of the “fetal tissue” (known as an unborn human) was in a place that could not be transferred to another for the responsibility of gestation (as in, you can’t give your womb to the State to finish building the person to then hand off to another).

When I pointed out that we get our rights from our “Creator,” as outlined in The Declaration of Independence, that’s when they decided that the rights begin at birth.  However, let’s look at what Blackstone had to say about it. He was the legal expert that the founders and framers cut their proverbial teeth on, in the legal profession. He was the “go to guy” for Common Law and the ancient Israelite civilization (on which our founding documents are based). It was he that Madison, the main author of the Constitution, referenced as he wrote.

Ok, drum-roll, please!
The attorney for the State of Texas [during the arguments for Roe V. Wade] responded that the only way to understand what the Constitution means by the word “person” was to go to “the teachings at the time the Constitution was framed.” He then quoted from William Blackstone, who is described in Simon & Shuster’s New Millennium Encyclopedia as a “British jurist and legal scholar, whose work Commentaries on the Laws of England was used for more than a century as the foundation of all legal education in Great Britain and the U.S.” [445] In this work, Blackstone wrote that life is a “right” that

is inherent by nature in every individual, and exists even before the child is born.[446]

This reference is from: http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp

Huh. Well, that sounds suspiciously like the Supreme Law of the Land is to protect life of every individual. AND, that the right to life starts at conception.

So, the lower laws, that have found it to be legal to execute innocent people by dismemberment, burning to death via saline in the womb, or having their heads split open and brains sucked out are wrong.

The location of the person is irrelevant. They can have their own personal indoor pools that consist of amniotic fluid…and still have the right to live.

The court, in case you weren’t paying attention, decided that the words of the fourteenth amendment: “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” meant that the woman had the right to privacy, which meant that she could abort AT ANY TIME until the time of birth. The fact that there is no right to privacy in that entire amendment, nor any mention of the right to life of the unborn human, was, apparently, irrelevant.

Yeah, that “logic” escapes me, too.