This column is in response to Nigel Alcorn’s Feb. 10 article, Pro-choice: Abortion assists low-income families.

Instead of dealing directly with the argument that Nigel (Alcorn) has presented, I think it wise to first show how abortion came to be legalized by a group of activist judges, who chose to undermine the Constitution. This is the result of them trying to push their own personal beliefs and political opinions on Americans.

This will eventually tie into the topic on-hand and address the arguments that have been made in support of this practice.

There are a few Supreme Court cases which established the foundation for the court to legalize abortion.

Justice Hugo Black stated in dissent to Justice William Douglas’s majority opinion, in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut that there is no specific right to privacy included in the Constitution. Rather there are specific constitutional provisions which protect privacy at certain times.

Justice Black concluded by saying, “I like my privacy as much as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some constitutional provision.?

The founding fathers wrote into the Constitution provisions that provided privacy for the citizens of America, as seen in the 4th Amendment, which protects against unwarranted search and seizure. Justice Black hit the nail right on the head when he wrote his opinion, as there is no ?right to privacy? included in the Constitution.

It was this case which first laid the foundation for the ?right to privacy clause? which in turned opened the door for pivotal landmark cases, like the case of Roe v. Wade to be passed.

For those who don?t know the history and circumstances around the case of Roe v. Wade, they are fairly simple and straight forward. Roe (also known as Norma McCorvey), was a pregnant woman from Texas wanted to get an abortion. However Texas law prohibited abortions except in cases where the mother?s life was in danger.

Over a period of time the case eventually was brought before the Supreme Court where it was unfortunately passed.

When Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion he addressed the ?right to privacy? that had already been addressed in the previous cases: ?The Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy does exist under the Constitution?. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage? procreation? contraception? family relationships? and child rearing and education?.?

This shows how one of the most influential cases in American history was built upon judicial activism and personal opinion. Justice Douglas overturned a law using, what he thought was a ?right to privacy? included in the Constitution. Later on the case of Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun used Douglas?s majority opinion and the ?right to privacy? that spawned from it, and expanded them to include the topics listed in his quote above.

This shows how one case of judicial activism was expanded upon by yet another case of judicial activism to overturn the Texas law in the case of Roe v. Wade, making it illegal for states to outlaw abortion.

All of this to say that the cases surrounding the legalization of abortion were unconstitutional, meaning that the legalization of abortion should have never happened.

Now, to address the more specific arguments represented in Nigel?s article.

The main point as expressed by both your article and comment seems to be that abortion is there to help those that are economically destitute, and will not be able to make ends meet with a baby. However, by using this argument, one could draw the conclusion that poor people are stupid as well because they don?t know that having sex can lead to a pregnancy (who would have ever guessed that?).

Even from a secular standpoint, with no regard to Christian values, the argument does not hold up ? there are countless options to prevent one from getting pregnant. Anybody with half a brain knows that sex leads to the possibility of pregnancy, and if one so chooses to live in that kind of lifestyle then he or she should either be prepared to take preventative measures or to face the consequences.

The fact is that poverty is no excuse for stupidity. One cannot claim poverty in defense of taking an innocent life.

For more staff opinions on abortion, read the Feb. 10 article, Pro-life: Restrict abortion rights.