RESPONSIBILITY

I read about abortion in the paper: Some women are fighting anti-abortion; people saying they have a right to control their own bodies. As I understand the true law to be, the male carries the seed of life, the female is the planting ground. When a garden is planted, we do not throw the seeds randomly. We wisely select a fertile planting ground so we can put order to our garden. With faith, love and caring we reap a fine harvest.

Once a person has allowed the seed to be planted and by naturalcourse it takes root, it is no longer a matter of their own destiny.

INTENT

On or about February 19, 1978 the plaintiff was visiting a friend’s house. Her son was sitting and three female friends were present. They were talking at the child all at once. They were not talking to the person rather his body as if he was a doll. "You’re so pretty", "You’re so cute" were their comments. He was very confused.

That evening as the plaintiff was reading the paper and contemplating the events of the day, a harsh realization became evident. We are concerned about black rights, women’s rights and the elderly but at least these individuals have the power to voice a defense. The children have no spokesman. If we started with respect for the children’s rights, the other problems would be non-existent.

From this realization the plaintiff took it upon himself to act on behalf of the children. He took his fragmented beliefs and formulated them into a comprehensive defense after analyzing the opposing arguments.

The argument the plaintiff read basically was that the government was out of place regulating abortion because it was contended that it was an infringement on a woman’s right to free choice in matters pertaining to her own body.

The plaintiff believes once a woman is public in her actions and allows a seed foreign to her own body planted, it is no longer a matter of her own life. We do not abort the mother; rather the new life is offended.

A new life was conceived by social actions and society is obligated to protect the rights of this defenseless being. Fertilization put life in motion. To abort life is to deny its individual development.

In his writing, the plaintiff used the analogy between the plant seed and the human seed to illustrate our responsibility as social beings.

The last comment referring to the "Declaration of Independence" was added to show the plaintiff’s philosophy was compatible with the premise for the formation of this nation. Therefore since it was the last thought to come to mind it could not have been the plaintiff's central thought.

NOTATION: This letter doesn’t have anything to do with personalities it’s content is truth, natural law. As a responsible free press, I will appreciate reading this article in the Akron Beacon Journal.

Sincerely,

Tom Kiss

I brought this letter down 2-21-78 to the High Street door where I entrusted it to a guard. Irresponsibly it was misplaced. Everyone’s time and energies are important. Such a crucial issue as abortion must be understood for its true meaning.

*From this initial action four civil rights cases would evolve (C79-331A – Freedom of speech; C79-332A – Right to life; C79-333A and C79-334A – The right to work campaign)

On the wall of the Akron Common Pleas Courthouse:

ATTORNEY'S OATH OF OFFICE

MY OATH OF OFFICE

I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR:

I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Ohio;

I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;

I will not counsel or maintain any suit of proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land;

I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law;

I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client, and will accept no compensation in connection with his business except from him or with his knowledge and approval’

I will abstain from all offensive personality, and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged;

I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay any man’s cause for lucre or malice, SO HELP ME GOD.

Editorial in Akron Beacon Journal Thursday November 16, 1978

It's time Ohio allowed cameras in courtroom.

(Harry Burger Chief Justice) Sunday, April 30, 1978

BURGER made it abundantly clear that he was not one of those judges who regard the constitutional prohibition against abridgment of press freedom “as somehow conferring special and extraordinary privileges or status on the institutional press.”

He suggested that any member of the public with an idea to express — even the housewife who mimeographs a notice In the church basement — stands on the same constitutional footing, in his view, as a reporter for a national newspaper that owns broadcast facilities and a news syndicate.

Thursday, November 9, 1978

VATICAN CITY — Pope John Paul II on Wednesday called human rights "the great effort of our time" and said all men should defend themselves when systems trespass on them.

"It cannot be man for the system, but the system must be for man," the former Polish Cardinal told 10,000 pilgrims attending his weekly public audience In St. Peter’s Basilica. "Therefore it is necessary to defend oneself from any stifling of the system."