“I believe that this is the first time that a majority of the court has agreed with a plaintiff’s argument that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!”
This is taken whole from your post to me. Please explain to me how it does not state what it so clearly does. To agree with the plaintiff’s argument that life begins at conception means that you agree that life begins at conception.
I’m sorry that I got very excited and did not explain my point very well in my first post.
But, I think that I did make a little better attempt with second post…
Please keep my second post in mind and let me add this:
You can not induce an abortion with an abortifacient unless there is an already fertilized egg to destroy, therefore the plaintiffs imply in their argument that “life has began at conception”. To destroy this conceived life (to kill it, MURDER IT) is a sin, based on their religious belief.
If the majority of the SC did NOT agree with the plaintiff’s *argument*, they would have decided that there was no legal basis for the plaintiffs claim that life begins at conception, therefore there could be no killing (MURDER) that would considered as a religious sin.