Proof of Life: Notes and Rebuttal on the presumptions of Roe vs Wade.
In the 1973 Supreme Court Decision Roe vs Wade the Court embraced an unprovable negative presumption that life was not present in the unborn fetus and therefore did not enjoy the condition of personage and therefore the abortion process could destroy neither. Justice Blackmun added the following proviso.
“If this suggestion of person hood is established,…… the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.” (Blackmun;Row vs. Wade pg. 179 Reports ref. to Texas statute on abortion.)
NOTE: The initial and fundamental presumption of all law is that life is present and that it belongs to a human being i.e. a person. This is so because the law is only for the living and the only respondents are persons. Therefore the presumption.
The Constitution requires only three things pertinent to the abortion issue. They are:
1. Presence of life. (When life begins is irrelevant. The Constitution is not concerned with this phenomena and law does not,cannot, protect it. )
2. Personage, ie. species.
3. If the above are established in the affirmative then due process is required before you can kill it.
Proof of Life:
The living ultimately become the nonliving. The nonliving never become the living. Therefore life is either present or it’s not and life never arises spontaneously. It follows that life must be present from the point of conception until death occurs. If life is not present at conception it can never be present at any point subsequent to conception because it cannot arise spontaneously. Therefore life begets only life.
Proof of Species.
All living things are a product of a reproductive process, either sexual or asexual.
The reproduction of anything, be it specie of coin in your pocket, a fender for your car, a community of identical houses and so-on, requires a constant template of some type to determine what specie of thing will be reproduced. That template may be a die, a mold, a set of plans or instructions, a digital program etc.etc.. Among the living that template is genetics. Species among the living is a property of genetics and nothing else.
Therefore if the living being in question is of human origin and human destiny it can only be regarded as human. If it is human two things become immediately apparent.
First, if it is human, it is a member of a species. If it is a member of a species its being constitutes an entity of life rather than an undifferentiated or differentiated tissue of life such as a skin cell.
Second, if its specie is human, it enjoys the condition of personage.
This truth is irrefutable within the common meaning of our common language. The product of human procreation is a living human entity and therefor a person. The law and the Constitution do not permit spurious conjecture or supposition.
The Agenda of the Court:
The above constitute empirical evidence of forensic quality that was and is within immediate and easy reach of the Court but ignored. The response of the Chief Justice who authored Roe vs Wade to a direct question posed by a journalist from the Chicago Tribune following his retirement from the bench betrayed his violation of duty and the agenda of the Court.
“It was the step that had to be taken as we go down the road toward the full emancipation of women.” (Blackmun, 4/7/1994 Chicago Tribune.
It should be clear that the sole purpose of the decision was not to preserve the privacy of the pregnant female, but to emancipate her from the responsibility for the consequences of her sexual activity.
Note: As stated by the Court “the law deals in the known, not the unknown”, and therefore the knowable rather than the unknowable. The fertilized ovum is therefore not protected by law until it attaches to the womb and gestation begins such as its forced removal would cause its death. This is an unknowable circumstance. This means that all current methods of contraception that prevent the zygote from attaching to the uterine wall such that gestation can begin are protected by law. The female has the right to prevent pregnancy, but not to abort a pregnancy causing the death of the individual that resides within her without due process. The same applies to those who perform such procedures. Circumstances resulting in development of the fetus, such as ectopic pregnancies, etc. which threaten the life of the mother or are a result of the rape of a minor or forced submission but not limited to these could be expedited through an administrative review board. This is for the states to decide so long as due process is observed.
Unintended and unanticipated Consequences:
Our so-called Social Security system is based on the assumption that the benefits of the demographic population in retirement will be paid by a tax levied back on the demographic of those still in the labor force. Unfortunately, the demographic of the former exceeds the demographic of the latter by by several generations. Each of those generations, as they retire, overlap the debt obligations to those who preceded them into retirement. Thus the productive tax debit from those still in the labor demographic must grow ever greater over time. This demographic continues to shrink in relation to demand as time elapses. Our current birth rate is approximately four million live births annually. Since 1973, the year Roe vs Wade legalized abortion, in the vicinity of 50 million potential workers were eliminated from the future work force and will never arrive in the work place to pay their F.I.C.A tax. This constitutes a 20% deficit in what should have been the natural birth rate of the nation to say nothing of those precluded, albeit legitimately, by modern birth control methods. Thus the debt obligation of the Social Security Trust must inevitably fall on the General Treasury. This appears to now be the case.
How can the Nation expect the younger generations entering the workforce from this time on to produce the wealth necessary to support and sustain the multiple layers of generations who proceeded them into retirement and at the same time provide for the needs of their own families, educate their young at highly inflated costs, pay for reasonable amounts of insurance to protect them against the hazards of life, and at the same time prepare himself and the spouse for their own retirement needs and the needs of the economically disenfranchised for whatever cause?
Believe it or not, there may be a way. See the Greatest Irony of Economic History.
Help promote this idea. Embarrass the Supreme Court with their own errors. Roe vs. Wade is vulnerable as a matter of law. The Court holds forth no body of empirical evidence of forensic quality that support the assumptions, assertions and conclusions reached by Blackmun and the Court in Roe. It is based entirely on meager precedents and subjective assumptions. See The Servants of Expediency and Ockham’s Razor and Roe vs. Wade. Visit our promotional products on www.Zazzle.com/thebushwhacker . T-shirts, mugs and bumper stickers are available. “Life begets only Life.”
One Response to “Proof of Life: Notes and Rebuttal on the presumptions of Roe vs Wade.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.