There is no such thing as abortion rights in the constitution, and they lied and twisted the truth like most liberals do, to commit genocide against unborn children because god forbid, some women are whores, and some men cant keep it in there pants.

I do not like you twisted christians trying to IMPOSE your 'morality' on society (re. abortion). You twisted christians stand out in front of abortion clinics protesting, when you should be lining-up in front of ORPHANAGES to adopt some of those 'sacred' lives you claim to be championing....there are thousands of unwanted children that could use a good Christian home....but that is not what you offer.

"Catholics, politicians and twisted christians oppose abortion because they KNOW unwanted children are easy targets for pedophiles."

"there is a difference between having convictions and having the COURAGE of your convictions."

Like anybody would ever invite a bitter twit like you to engage in sex.

Ahh, yes, just like the Republicans who got our wonderfully idiotic president in office.
I feel they made the right choice: It's a personal decision, not a legal debate.

Also, you have no right to impose your morality on society, this is a free country, right? People should have the right to choose what they do with their bodies, and just because it may not be..."responsible", doesn't mean you can be the moral police who jump in a tell them to change there ways.
People have their own boundaries, you can't set those for them, so don't try to.

Please review your American history book on the pages that refer to Marbury v Madison and the precedent of judicial review. You really don't know a whole lot about our judicial system and things like stari decisis.

If anyone was IMPOSING their morality, there would be no abortion clinics.
If speaking out against abortion is seen as IMPOSING morality, is that an admission that abortion is immoral? Women tell me abortion is psychologically devastating........are they lying about it to appear to have morals?
Texas came up with a solution for pedophiles, it's called "Execution by lethal injection".
Americans want change!

So tell us all WOW...how many unwanted children have YOU adopted ?

"there is a difference between conviction and COURAGE of conviction."

Oh yea, I see that you have no 'moral objection' to EXECUTIONS....you twisted christians have no problem with: killing folks, supporting politicians who lie, steal , cheat, have sex with minors and wage war...you just want everybody to stand-back and say "oh my, there's a wonderful Christian."

These are bits and pices of the opinion and dissent.

Most are paraphrases

Per Blackmun:
The texas statutes are typical of those that have been in place for aproximately a century. The Gorgia statutes are a legislative product that reflects recent attitudinal change of advancing medical knowledge and technique.

Restrictive abortion laws in effect in a majority of states derive from statutory changes effected in the latter half of the 19th century.

Throughout the major portion of the 19th century, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate pregnancy than she does in most states today.

This last part means that common law is the law they used that is wholly in line with the ideas of this nation from the begining.

These laws are a product of Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct.

when most abortion laws were enacted the procedure was hazardous to the woman.

Now this is the reason you used in your opening. This I quote word for word

"The third reason is the State's interest-some phrase it in terms of duty-in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. Only when the life of the pregnant woman herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries with her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. In assesing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigidclaim that as long as at least a potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone. It is with these interests, and the weight attached to them, that this case is concerned.

This means your argument is the most valid of the three presented.

Right to privacy has been found in Stanley v Georgia, the 4th and 5th, the penumbras of the bill of rights, Griswold, concept of liberty and the 14th, Loving, Skinner, Einstadt, Prince, Pierce.


Then you can keep reading in the opinion
This is Rhenquist now

Actually I am out of time right now, but read the actual case before you start making old worthless arguments. I will take this up again later though.