The issue of abortion is generally fought by two camps: Right to Life and Woman's Right to Choose. They both have convincing arguments and at the bar of the Supreme Court the Woman's Right to Choose won. However, the other side wasn't Right to Life - it was largely State's Rights. You almost never hear that side anymore as far as abortion is concerned. The Right to Life argument never fully saw its day in court as far as Roe v Wade is concerned. With the exception of a little discussion about if the Texas law in question defined an unborn child as alive or not, the argument was founded on State's Rights and that it should be left to the states to decide matters of abortion. There was no evidence of the unborn child being alive presented. There was no talk about the right of life. There was talk about though about state's rights. Most people don't know that. That is why I thought I would put this on here for you to read.  The first time I listened to this case I was stunned at how weak the argument was against abortion. You probably will think so too.