Replies

Good post! I would only add two things:

1) Blackmun lied in Roe when he said there was no medical consensus on when life begins in 1973. It's true that in older times there was no such consensus, but after the development of the microscope, that issue was settled. The discovery of DNA, as well as other scientific advancements, nailed down fertilization as the beginning of a new human life with absolute certainty. Everything we've learned since 1973 (ultrasound, brain imaging, the growing discipline of fetal medicine...) has confirmed and solidified that.

2) Blackmun acted like he and the court were taking a "neutral" position on abortion by legalizing it. But that is not true any more than legalizing the lynching of racial minorities would be taking a "neutral" stance on the issue. Even if Blackmun had been right when he claimed no one knew when a new human life begins, by legalizing abortion he came down clearly on the side of those who would claim life doesn't begin until birth. The ruling robbed ALL humans within the womb of legal protection. The fact that they ALL don't get aborted is irrelevant. If even one gets aborted (let alone 40 million), then the court has sanctioned that act on the premise that the victim WASN'T a human being whose life was worthy of protection. That is NOT a neutral position on behalf of the court.

1) Blackmun lied in Roe when he said there was no medical consensus on when life begins in 1973. It's true that in older times there was no such consensus, but after the development of the microscope, that issue was settled...

There was a Life magazine spread, sometime in the 60s, of a baby in the womb. They showed the little guy sucking his thumb and how his fingers and toes developed. It sure seems to me that it came out prior to RvW, do any of you remember the details of that absolutely amazing article?

RvW's "blob of tissue" was crap, even then. And they knew it.

"If even one gets aborted (let alone 40 million), then the court has sanctioned that act on the premise that the victim WASN'T a human being whose life was worthy of protection. That is NOT a neutral position on behalf of the court."

Someday, Roe v Wade will be as indefensible as Dred Scott.