Roe ruling does not make abortion right

Both Valerie Ivanoff and Susan Schafer recently wrote to Fence Post that we should not compare dog fighting and abortions because there are laws that prohibit dog fighting, and the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Roe vs. Wade that some abortions are permitted.

In contrast to one of the letters, the Supreme Court did not give women the right to abortion. Only a Constitution Amendment provides citizens new rights; it gave Roe the right to an abortion.

Hence is my point that just because the Supreme Court of the United States makes a ruling doesn't make the ruling "right." Remember it was the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roger Taney who ruled that slaves were not entitled to rights of men because they were not men but property. With that line of thinking, since Michael Vick owned dogs as his property he must have felt he had the right to do what he pleased with his property. Today we recognize Taney's decision was wrong; however his ruling permitted the continuation of the right to own other human beings.

I'm not sure if either of the Fence Post writers view the unborn as property or something else but certainly refuse to acknowledge the unborn as living beings, just as Chief Justice Taney refused to acknowledge those in bondage as human beings.

Just because the Supreme Court ruled that Roe had a right to legally have an abortion, does that make abortion right and give every woman the right to do so?

Ron Feldman

Roselle