"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress
says...

They didn't have to struggle with it. Roe v Wade was decided on the basis
of
default in a potential conflict of rights. The 14th Amendment Due Process
rights, which are the relevant ones, are not established under law nor
under
the Constitution for prenatal life. (In the actual decision of this case,
that meant that the state of Texas had no compelling right to prevent an
abortion.) OTOH, the rights of a woman to life and to privacy are
established under law.

No, wait. Gunner had given me a link where the constitution really
*has* determined that a fetus is a human being, from conception.

Oh. Hang on. I seem to have misplaced it. :^)

As the justices themselves said (from the majority opinion of Roe,
written
by Blackman): "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."

Ok, then, Blackmun seems to trump Gunner at this place and time....

Jim

It's worth reading the majority opinion in Roe. It's not particularly long,
maybe a few pages -- unlike the 100 pages of the 5th Circuit Court's
pro-RKBA decision, which I'm sure that some here have read. g

There are common misconceptions about what the case actually decided, and
the basis for their decision. Reading it should clear that up. In addition
to not being terribly long, it's also fairly clear.

Ed Huntress