We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

And in quoting a series of "precedents" that are irrelevant to American Case Law, and referencing as series of State Cases, you are ignoring the fact that the SCOTUS took these issues out of the hands of ths state and made Roe the Law of the Land; you have proven my point...The SCOTUS RULES!

Of course the SCOTUS has done many reprehensible things from declaring that a Black Man was not fully a man (Dred Scott) to approving of forced sterilizaiton. (Buck v Bell)...want more?

I am remined of the famous statement by the Atheist Justice OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES who famously declared in Buck v Bell that "three generations of imbeclies are enough." He really let the cat out of the bag with that one.

Why are Anti Theists always on the side of seeing Death as a solution?

Actually, I did read it. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

That is where I got the info on historical and legal precedent... directly from the opinion.

The words "science," "heart," and "brain" appear a grand total of ZERO times in the document. So I don't know what you are referring to when you say the Court got the science wrong... esp regarding heartbeats and brain waves. They didn't even address that. The Court wasn't concerned with defining life...
...they were interested in balancing the individuals' right (doctors moreso than women) versus the interests of the state. They thought the point of fetal viability was an important date in this balance, but thats not related to the earliest signs of brain and heart function, its the ability to survive independently of the mother.


There are a series of precedents that inform us of the Framer's possible intent. In this case, there wasn't much, but enough to inform us that this wasn't one of their major concerns when drafting the document. Then there are a series of both Federal AND State cases as precedent. The first half of that list of cases ended up in US District Court, so the Federal Gov't was active in this issue long before 1973. In Roe v Wade, the District Court ruled in favor of Roe on the grounds that the law violated the 9th Amendment. The Supreme Court simply agreed and added the 14th Amendment, but felt that at some point (viability), the state might have an interest.

And of course when an individual state establishes a law that violates the US Constitution, what is the recourse? Violating the Constitution is not at the discretion of each state. That is exactly why the Supreme Court exists!


What an awful argument. For every bad decision, I can name a good one (Brown vs the Board; Gideon vs Wainwright; Miranda vs Arizona; etc etc). Historically bad decisions mean nothing about RvW, but simpletons like them because it confirms their bias that the SC is evil.


I'm glad you added that he was an atheist... because if there's one thing you've "proven" its that ALL atheists agree on everything, and that all Supreme Court justices do as well. Bravo, Mike. Do you really want to go down this pointless, stupid, "guilt-by-association" road again? How far back in time do you think I will have to go before I find a Christian who was a racist, a pedophile, a murderer, etc? Yesterday? Can I hang his/her sins around your neck because you're a Christian, too?


First, can we assume "anti-theist" is just code for "atheist," or probably "liberal?" Just another example of Mike's inability to enter an honest discussion - like the Supreme Court above, he can't simply disagree, he has to frame the debate in way that casts his opponents in the most negative hyperbolic light possible. Second, why do you assume that "anti-theists" always see Death as a solution? Does it make you feel better to think that?

At any rate, I'll just re-word your question so that it can be answered... "Do 'people like you' always see Death as a solution?" And the answer is No, Mike... people like me (graduate education in the sciences, pro-science, pro-education, religiously agnostic/atheist, politically center-left, family man) do not always see Death as a solution. Death is a tragedy because, for people like me, there is nothing after this life. It is all there is. No Heaven. No eternal life. No 72 virgins. So we're not so anxious to leave, and not so anxious to see others go, either.

There's a much longer and thoughtful reply I could give, especially as this thread has become about abortion, but given your insincere manner of posing the question, I doubt you're really interested. And I doubt you'd reciprocate with an equally thoughtful exchange. So we'll just leave it at that.

Actually, I did read it. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

That is where I got the info on historical and legal precedent... directly from the opinion.

The words "science," "heart," and "brain" appear a grand total of ZERO times in the document. So I don't know what you are referring to when you say the Court got the science wrong... esp regarding heartbeats and brain waves. They didn't even address that. The Court wasn't concerned with defining life...
...they were interested in balancing the individuals' right (doctors moreso than women) versus the interests of the state. They thought the point of fetal viability was an important date in this balance, but thats not related to the earliest signs of brain and heart function, its the ability to survive independently of the mother.


There are a series of precedents that inform us of the Framer's possible intent. In this case, there wasn't much, but enough to inform us that this wasn't one of their major concerns when drafting the document. Then there are a series of both Federal AND State cases as precedent. The first half of that list of cases ended up in US District Court, so the Federal Gov't was active in this issue long before 1973. In Roe v Wade, the District Court ruled in favor of Roe on the grounds that the law violated the 9th Amendment. The Supreme Court simply agreed and added the 14th Amendment. And of course when an individual state violates the US Constitution, what is the recourse? Violating the Constitution is not at the discretion of each state. That is exactly why the Supreme Court exists!


What an awful argument. For every bad decision, I can name a good one (Brown vs the Board; Gideon vs Wainwright; Miranda vs Arizona; etc etc). Historically bad decisions mean nothing about RvW, but simpletons like them because it confirms their bias that the SC is evil.


I'm glad you added that he was an atheist... because if there's one thing you've "proven" its that ALL atheists agree on everything, and that all Supreme Court justices do as well. Bravo, Mike. Do you really want to go down this pointless, stupid, "guilt-by-association" road again? How far back in time do you think I will have to go before I find a Christian who was a racist, a pedophile, a murderer, etc? Yesterday? Can I hang his/her sins around your neck because you're a Christian, too?


First, can we assume "anti-theist" is just code for "atheist," or probably "liberal?" Just another example of Mike's inability to enter an honest discussion - like the Supreme Court above, he can't simply disagree, he has to frame the debate in way that casts his opponents in the most negative hyperbolic light possible. Second, why do you assume that "anti-theists" always see Death as a solution? Does it make you feel better to think that?

At any rate, I'll just re-word your question so that it can be answered... "Do 'people like you' always see Death as a solution?" And the answer is No, Mike... people like me (graduate education in the sciences, pro-science, pro-education, religiously agnostic/atheist, politically center-left, family man) do not always see Death as a solution. Death is a tragedy because, for people like me, there is nothing after this life. It is all there is. No Heaven. No eternal life. No 72 virgins. So we're not so anxious to leave, and not so anxious to see others go, either.

There's a much longer and thoughtful reply I could give, especially as this thread has become about abortion, but given your insincere manner of posing the question, I doubt you're really interested. And I doubt you'd reciprocate with an equally thoughtful exchange. So we'll just leave it at that.

The decision was actually a privacy issue, and the Court found a lot of legal precedent to consider as to whether or not the right to privacy was broad enough to include abortion:

its the ability to survive independently of the mother

I've met numerous individuals who don't have the ability to survive independently of their mother. So you're suggesting it would be ok to have their brains sucked out as long as we kept it a secret. I'm impressed by your genius.

Just treat every pregnancy as parasitic invasion (which it is and this is why the immune system of the female is fighting it). Unintended pregnancies result in the highest percentage of abortions. Intended pregnancies don't. Just like a parasite, fetus and the mother live in a symbiosis and one must depend on the other. Biologically speaking, it maybe a rather cold and stark way to look at pregnancy, but nonetheless, the only way to bypass any emotional attachment and be the most inclusive to both sides.

Look at it like a marriage - it has a potential to work out, yet 50 percent and more result in divorce in the USA. Keep it neutral in definitions. Like common marriage, civil union or legal marriage - call your social and societal contract however you want. It is not going to effect me or others in terms of if they'll get married, cohabitate or will have a civil union. The same with pregnancies. If someone carries to term, it works for them. If someone terminates, it works for them and just is. Keep it neutral. Keep everyone happy. Everybody wins. This is what it's all about. No need to keep any secrets when there is objective reality.

Just treat every pregnancy as parasitic invasion (which it is and this is why the immune system of the female is fighting it). Unintended pregnancies result in the highest percentage of abortions. Intended pregnancies don't. Just like a parasite, fetus and the mother live in a symbiosis and one must depend on the other. Biologically speaking, it maybe a rather cold and stark way to look at pregnancy, but nonetheless, the only way to bypass any emotional attachment and be the most inclusive to both sides.

Look at it like a marriage - it has a potential to work out, yet 50 percent and more result in divorce in the USA. Keep it neutral in definitions. Like common marriage, civil union or legal marriage - call your social and societal contract however you want. It is not going to effect me or others in terms of if they'll get married, cohabitate or will have a civil union. The same with pregnancies. If someone carries to term, it works for them. If someone terminates, it works for them and just is. Keep it neutral. Keep everyone happy. Everybody wins. This is what it's all about. No need to keep any secrets when there is objective reality.

You still have not read Roe v. Wade, because while they discuss their views of viability you are being disengenous if you are pretending that did not take into account the science of the time; which was wrong.

And I am glad you don't always see death as a solution, although apparently sometimes you do.

But if you believe that this life is ALL THERE IS then what the hell gives you the right to support a decision to take the only life these unborn children will ever have? Mighty presumptuous of you.

No, the Presumption is made by the one who says "We don't know when life begins, so lets go ahead and kill it". Mighty presumptuous of you.