Why Abortion is Unconstitutional 1 of 2

Many people argue that the Supreme Court made abortion a constitutional right in the Rove v. Wade decision. This is mainly because many people are taught in high school and in college that the constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it does.

I was among the many people who had been taught this and believed it until I read the Lincoln Douglas Debates. I was persuaded that this wasn't the case when I read Lincoln's response to Stephen A. Douglas's assertion that the Supreme Court could not violate the constitution.

" In the second clause of the sixth article, I believe it is, of the Constitution of the United States, we find the following language: “This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding.” 20
The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the sentence which I will now read: “Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution.”" (Entire debate at Bartleby.com)

I later checked this and found that the part of the constitution he quoted was accurate.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Constitution

So now at least its clear that the Supreme Court is not allowed to define the constitution to be whatever they want it to be. This makes sense when you consider that the constitution derives it's legitimacy from the fact that it was voted on by representatives of the people. It would have been irrational for the founding fathers to on the one hand require the states to vote on it before it could be enacted it, or modified, and also allow unelected judges to change it as they saw fit.

Human/Animal DNA Research

This is just plain sick. I don't think even Mary Shelly could have dreamed up something like this.

"HUMAN-cow embryos have been created in a world first at Newcastle University in England, hailed by the scientific community, but labelled "monstrous" by opponents.

A team has grown hybrid embryos after injecting human DNA into eggs taken from cows' ovaries, which had most of their genetic material removed.

The embryos survived for three days and are intended to provide a limitless supply of stem cells to develop therapies for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries, overcoming a worldwide shortfall in human embryos." News.com

The part about having "a limitless supply of stem cells" gives some insight into the embryo research mentality. They think simply because they are able to artificially introduce a sperm and and egg that they have created life and therefore own it. The problem they have is that this is a difficult point for them to argue, after all, if they have the right to do whatever they want with it before it's born than why not afterward? From the moment of conception the unborn baby is composed of cells, and has his or her own unique set of human DNA, so they can't argue that he or she is not alive or human. But if they make some changes to the DNA, than they can say it's not human, so there's nothing wrong with tampering with it.

So now the question is if one of these human/animal creatures is born will it be given equal rights to humans? If it isn't considered equal to humans will scientists be allowed to experiment on it? This is a reasonable question since the whole point of making human/animals was so that they would be allowed to experiment on them.

Advocate Releases More Tapes

Not too long ago a college magazine known as the Advocate called a bunch of Planned Parenthood Clinics to see if they would take money to from a caller who said that his reason for giving the money was to get rid of blacks. The Advocate became famous last year when they caught Planned Parenthood hiding statutory rape.

The first one they released is here.


This is the most recent one.


This is yet another example of Planned Parenthood allowing greed to dictate their actions.