The rest of this abortion essay is divided into two parts. First is a general discussion mentioning some legal issues. Then the legal issues will be discussed in more detail. Be aware that some of the following material is personal opinion, although you will also find a lot of information (including links).

For thousands of years of western civilization, abortion was illegal after "quickening" (the point at about four months into pregnancy when a baby kicks and the mom feels it). This tradition can be traced back at least to the Ancient Greeks. In his book "Politics," Aristotle said that "the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive."[1] Aristotle contended that the right to life generally accrues earlier than birth and irrespective of whether the baby is strong enough to survive after birth (i.e. viability). This standard of Aristo

Should a woman be physically restrained so she will bring her advanced pregnancy to the point of viability? No. Penalties can be imposed on such a woman even after allowing her to get a safe pre-viability abortion. In other words, it is possible to legalize the attempt but outlaw the thing attempted. This may sound perverse, but the law does things like this all the time. For example, in a "tort" action, you normally can't sue someone for trying to do something hurtful, and can only sue for damages after the harm is done. Forced pregnancy is not something to which any civilized society should aspire, and doctors who perform pre-viability abortions generally ought to have immunity from punishment.

If a pregnancy is biologically healthy, is well past the first trimester, and was voluntarily conceived, then there should be some sort of abortion penalty absent extraordinary circumstances. Hasn't the mother chosen to run risks and allowed the fetus to reach this stage? And shouldn't women be treated like any responsible person, and asked to live with some of their choices instead of trying to reverse them whenever it suits their fancy? I'm referring to a small minority of women who would do these awful things. But should that small minority of women, who would treat a fetus as they would treat a bag of trash, be immune from the law in the name of safeguarding other women from the oft-mentioned "slippery slope"? Women have the right to vote, thank goodness, and women are not going to lose their rights and power as long as that right is exercised. Speaking of which, here's a hyperlink full of quotes from great women who won for all women the right to vote. People like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony strongly believed that abortion, generally speaking, is a crime. As a personal matter, I believe that it is dangerous to tamper with the chain of human life and possibly snuff out a human soul even with respect to an embryo, but I want people to make their own choices and would not try to impose my view on anyone else with respect to embryos. In contrast, the medical evidence is vastly more persuasive that a second trimester abortion actually has a thinking and feeling human being on the receiving end of the brutality.

A basic tenet of our legal system is that "the intention of the lawgiver is the law" as Lincoln said in his first inaugural address. People can disagree about what the lawmakers intended, and they can disagree about how much flexibility the lawmakers intended for us to have in interpreting the laws and the Constitution. But it should be manifestly obvious that courts of law must not be free to make up their own definitions for words used in the Constitution if those new definitions fly in the face of everything we know about the Framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Roe Court departed dramatically from this bedrock principle of the intention of the lawgiver being the law, and we are all the poorer for it. As discussed below, the Roe Court completely redefined the words "due process" beyond anything recognizable to the people who wrote and amended the Constitution, and the Roe Court furthermore held the common law unconstitutional as regards abortion. George Washington said it well in his Farewell Address, when he said this:

Quickening usually occurs at least two months before viability. I agree with those who would draw a line between lawful and unlawful abortion no later than four months after conception but no earlier than the end of the embryonic stage. This happens to be what the vast majority of people generally believes. [3] Because the abortion pill RU486 is only effective on an embryo up until the ninth week of pregnancy, I have loudly supported its legalization for many years.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, United Common, Politics Aristotle, Bill Rights, Roe Wade, Roe Court, Fourteenth Amendments, Susan Anthony, Justice Blackmun, VI Constitution, due process, supreme court, bill rights, substantive due process, substantive due, law land, roe wade, 14th amendment, process law, roe court, due process law, life liberty property, liberty property, due process clause, roe wade agree,
Approximate Word count = 3545
Approximate Pages = 14 (250 words per page double spaced)