"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:53:34 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

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

You will not find that the Court defined when a fetus acquires a
Constitutional right to life. . .although the legal status is that it
has
begun by the third trimester. Furthermore, you will find that the
legal
reasoning in the majority opinion constitutes a very hard-nosed
Constitutional originalism.

Happy reading.

The difficulty is, I doubt they can read. And if they can,
they already have their minds made up. It's wrong so they
can and should ignore the law. The end justifies the means
as far as they are concerned.

Of the several times I've chimed in here regarding the abortion issue, I
have yet to hear back from anyone who appears to have read the majority
opinion, or Stewart's concurring opinion. . .or anyone who even appears
to
know what the Court said. Getting into Stewart's out-of-Court interviews
and
writings about the legal basis for Roe v. Wade is out of the question,
when
people still seem to think that the Court decided when life begins.

For the record, here's a quote from the Opinion of the Court (the
majority
opinion):

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at
conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the
State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after
conception. 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..."


Hey Ed, long time no see :^). I hope all is well with you and yours.

Hi, John. 'Wondered where you got to. All's well here, and I hope the same
it true for you.



No one that I know is arguing the point of when life begins, they only
say they believe it's at conception.

Yeah, well, their belief is all well and good, but it's just opinion.

Just like the
pro-abortionists/choice people say they don't know. When life begins
is not the issue, just as you have pointed out. The issue is does the
woman have the right (based on a valid privacy principle) to decide
when life begins for herself, exclusive to societies right and
obligation to protect the innocent.

She doesn't have to. There is nothing in the Constitution that indicates the
right to life, or to anything else, begins before birth. See the extensive
citations and documentation in Roe v. Wade if you need confirmation.


Society has the right to regulate personal behaviour that has the
potential to kill or harm others. Wouldn't you agree?

Only sometimes. There are lots of actions that are protected, which have the
potential to harm others. You have a right to free speech, and you can
intentionally or unintentionally say something that will result in someone
else dying. That doesn't end your right to speech.


Personally I believe life begins "before" conception :^). Can you
understand how that's possible :^).

Sure, but that doesn't mean I understand you. g

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)