Archive for the ‘Roe vs. Wade’ Category

Aug 21

the Road Kill and Roe v Wade

 

the Road Kill                                                                                         
By theBushwhacker ©1998

I was down south awhile back, visiting some friends, and happened by the local drug store where a wise old Judge, long since retired from the bench, and the daughter of the store owner, a law student recently returned from an Eastern University, were engaged in conversation regarding the rise of divergent views on abortion.  The young woman, somewhat full of herself and her new found knowledge of things worldly and lawyerly, was taken somewhat aback when she learned that the grizzled old jurist held that an unborn fetus was entitled to the same protection of the law as one recently delivered of the womb.  The conversation, as nearly as I can recall, went something like this:

Judge: “I believe Justice Blackmun erred numerous times in his assumptions when he formulated his position in Row vs. Wade.” he stated flatly.  “For instance, at the outset he presumed that since doctors, theologians, philosophers and so forth couldn’t agree as to when life begins it wasn’t the Court’s job to do so either.  On this point he was quite right, of course.”

Young woman: “Of course, so where did he err?”

Judge: “The Constitution does not deal with the beginning of life, only the presence of life as it pertains to persons.  It merely forbids the taking of the life of a person without due process.  When life begins is irrelevant.  Justice Blackmun, in formulating his position on Roe vs Wade made two unprovable assumptions.  First, that life was not present in the unborn.  Second, that the unborn was not a member of the human species.  On the basis of these errors and ignoring relevant and contradicting evidence that was within immediate and easy reach of the Court he continued on to create law.

Young woman:  “But that still doesn’t change anything.”  she insisted.  “Justice Blackmun, quoting Justice Clark, said that life isn’t present until it is formed and since it isn’t present it cannot be destroyed.

The old Judge took a big draw on his cigar, exhaled slowly, smiled a slight wry smile and asked, “Do you drive a car?”

Young woman: “Well of course!”

Judge: “Ever hit an animal?”

Young woman:  “Yes. Once. A dog.”

Judge: “Kill it?”

Young woman:  “Yes.”

Judge: “You sure?”

Young woman:  “Yes. I got out and checked.  It was very sad.  Somebody’s pet, I think.  But it was quite dead.”

Judge: “It didn’t get up and later and run away?”

Young woman:  Somewhat miffed at him pressing a painful memory she replied….”No, of course not.  It was quite dead.  I’m sure of it. What has this got to do with anything?”

Judge: “Just this.  We know, most of us anyway, that a living thing can die and become a nonliving thing, but a nonliving thing cannot become alive.”

Young woman: “So what?”

Judge: “Well, think about that for a minute.  If this is true, and were reasonably certain it is, then it must also be true that life is either present or it’s not and that life does not arise spontaneously.”

Young woman: “So?”

Judge: “Well, if these things are true, then life must be present from conception until death occurs.  The conclusion is inescapable, isn’t it?”

Young woman: Silence.

Judge: “Stated another way, if life is not present at conception, it can never be present at any point subsequent to conception, because it cannot arise spontaneously, or by itself.  Correct?”

The curmudgeon took another long puff on his cigar and studied her closely, as if watching her mind struggle with this idea.

Young woman:  “But even if it is alive it’s not a person until it is born.  It’s just—a blob of tissue.  The Constitution only protects persons.”

Judge: “ All life is a product of a reproductive process.  The reproduction of anything, the glass you’re drinking from, the car you drive, the chair your sitting on, requires the existence of some sort of template or plan, mold, set of instructions or whatever to determine its specie.  The coin on this table for instance required a constant die to achieve precise reproduction. Among the living species is a property of genetics and nothing else.  Among the living this is the template of life.  If the living being or blob of tissue in question is of human origin and human destiny it can only be regarded as human, is that not so?”

Young woman:  Long pause. “I’m thinking.”

Judge: “Then think on this too.  If the unborn living being is human, then it is a member of a species and therefore an entity of life and a complete being as opposed to a mere tissue of life such as a “blob” as you put it.  The Constitution does not withhold or qualify its protection according to stage of life or development.  If it does, you will need to instruct me as to where that might be found.”

While she was still trying to catch her intellectual breath the old gentleman hit her with another one……”Another test that Blackmun could have used to determine what he was dealing with is the mandate of life.”

Young woman: “The what?”

Judge: “The mandate of life.  Think back.  You must have taken a biology course or two or at least picked up on why all the boys were paying you so much attention.”

Young woman: Embarrassed fidget.

Judge: “Sure…..you know what I’m talking about now don’t you?  Nature only requires one thing of each member of each species that inhabit the planet……that’s all, nothing else.”

Young woman:  “Okay.  So what’s the point?” recovering from her momentary embarrassment.

Judge: “Just this.  Only a member of a species can participate in fulfilling this mandate.”

Young woman: “So?”

Judge: “So what did we just say is one of the definitions of an entity?  What qualifies a living thing as a complete being as opposed to blob of tissue?”

Young woman: Blank, questioning stare.

Judge: “It must be a member of a species, of course.  Any member of any species is regarded as an entity of life.”   Long pause—–”Then the question has to be asked, does this unborn living thing or being, if left alone, have the potential to engage in reproduction or to perpetuate itself?  If it does, then it must be regarded as an entity of life rather than a tissue of life, such as a skin cell.  I think we can reasonably assume that it has such potential and destiny, don’t you?”

Young woman: “But what about the sperm and the ovum?  Justice Blackmun said they have life.  Are they not of human origin and human destiny just the same as the fertilized egg?”

Judge: “The sperm and the ovum have no viability of themselves, that is to say, they cannot, of themselves, grow and develop beyond what they are.  Since the sperm requires the ovum and the ovum requires the sperm we can deduce that neither is complete without the other and therefore do not constitute entities.  The hosts from which they come require nothing.  Their individuality is complete.  Their mandate is to create another individual.  The mandate of the sperm and the ovum is to become another individual.”

Young woman: Sensing the direction things were going….”But I’m still not convinced that the fetus doesn’t need to undergo a certain amount of development, or as Blackmun put it, formation, before we can regard it as being alive, much less a person.  I mean after all, it’s not even recognizable during the first few weeks of development.”

Judge: “Think about it again.  We know……those of us that pay attention to things at least….that in nature many things may be observed to take form.   Crystals form, canyons form, stalactites form and so on.  But each of these formations is the result of a process, such as erosion, crystallization, mineralization or evaporation and so on.  Nothing happens in the absence of process. Whatever form it takes is incidental to and a consequence of that process. So too is life a process.”

He continued, “Formation is not, by itself, an adequate indication of the presence or absence of life.  Didn’t the dog you killed have just as much form after death as when it was alive?  You could still tell it was a dog, couldn’t you?  But how did you know it was dead?  Wasn’t it because your senses, along with your life experience told you that its life processes had most likely ceased?  Did you need to have knowledge of when its life began or when it was conceived or became viable to determine these things?”

“One more thing.  You referred to “development” during the first few weeks of “formation.” Yet Blackmun precludes the presence of life during this period of time.  What process was it, other than the life process, do you think he was referring to?  Was “formation” taking place in the absence of the life process?  Can you explain the validity of this conundrum?  Let me know when you have achieved this.”

The young woman was silent, nodding, thinking.  The Judge responded with a long thoughtful smoked filled silence of his own.

Finally.  “But what about viability?” she asked.

“What about it?” the Judge replied.

Young woman: “Justice Blackmun said that the fetus could only be considered viable, and therefore alive, when it could survive outside the womb on its own, and that this doesn’t occur until about the 24th to 48th week of gestation.”

Judge: “HA!.  He also said the Court dealt in the known rather than the unknown and not at all in speculation.  Yet is position on viability is rife with speculation, isn’t it?” It’s
like saying to the fetus if you can eat with a fork we’ll let you live, if you have to suck through a straw we’ll let you die.”

Young woman: “Huh?”

Judge: “Never mind. Here again ol’ Blackmun demonstrated his inadequacy to deal with the task at hand.  What is viability? What does it mean?”

Young woman: “Well,” she replied.  “As he used it…it meant the ability to live…..to continue life by one’s self.”

Judge: “The term viability is from the Latin vita, which means to have life.  In common usage it refers to the ability of an entity to grow and develop, that is, to fulfill its potential via the life process.  This means that even a seed that lies dormant for months or years is still considered viable so long as it retains this potential.  Blackmun chose to employ the far narrower and circumspect medical usage of the term as it applies to the post partum child ignoring the fact that such usage in no way precluded the viability of the pre-partum child.  The ability of the pre-partum fetus to grow and develop within the womb qualifies it, by definition, as viable and therefor having vitality or life and therefore alive.”
“Blackmun also failed to understand that the presence of viability always indicates presence of life, but the presence of life does not necessarily indicate viability.  An old man, dying of disease, might be considered to have no further viability.  His life is near its end.  But until his life processes cease life is still present and cannot be denied except by due process of law.  The Constitution protects and recognizes life or vitality, not viability.  Viability denotes potential, not the actual.  Blackmun contradicted himself by using this term to set his standard of law.  The premature infant may be very much alive, but its potential to grow and develop, that is, its viability, has been drastically compromised by circumstance.  How can it be said that since it has no viability that it is not alive when the evidence of our experience and our senses dictate otherwise? How then do we apply this standard of viability as put forth by Blackmun?  If we assist such an infant and it lives do we say that it is viable?  Of course.  If we assist it and it dies do we say it was not viable, or do we say that it was never alive in the first place?  That is the dilemma Blackmun has posed for us as a result of his contradiction.   The ability to live, that is viability, denotes potential.  Life or vitality denotes the actual, the presence of the life process.  Again, the Constitution protects only the known, life and its presence, not viability or potential.  When the unborn achieves or acquires such in ‘about 24 to 28 weeks’ following conception as specified by the Court is an entirely speculative and unknowable condition.  It is the processes of vitality measured by vital signs that determine presence of the life process, not its potential.  These are present and ongoing from a successful conception.”

“Lastly but certainly not of the least, if we accept Blackmun’s formula then we also must accept the notion that there is a period of gestation that can only be described as pre-living or pre-viable.  You find such an idea defined or described in any credible work of science or medicine and I’ll buy you a new car.”

Young woman: Looking for an argument, a flaw in the old jurist’s position responded: “According to Blackmun the Constitution protects only persons and nowhere in the Constitution is the unborn identified as a person.”

Judge: “This is bogus.  For one thing the Constitution doesn’t identify any being, even a human one as a person.  Personage is understood.  It is a given, a property of the human condition.  The initial and fundamental presumption of all law is that life is present and enjoys the condition of personage.  This is so because the law is only for the living and the only respondents are persons.  Thus the presumption.  The purpose of the Constitution is not to define personage but to contain tyranny.  It could more easily be said that the Fourteenth Amendment requires prior personage in regards to naturalization or birth when qualifying citizenship. Birth only reveals the actual to the eye. We have to ask, does the law give meaning to the common language or does our common language give meaning to the law?

Young woman:  “But you still haven’t proven that the unborn is a person.”

Judge:  “Oh, but I did my dear.  You just weren’t listening.”

Young woman: “How so?”

Judge: “We proved that life is present at conception, agreed?”

Young woman: “I guess.”

Judge: “We also proved that since this living entity is of human origin and human destiny it is species specific to the human race, right?”

Young woman: “I guess.”

Judge: “Is that not the definition of a person?”

Young woman:  “Oh—-well yes—–maybe—-I guess you could say that.  But the real test is the Court proceeding.  How would you admit all this?  Surely other jurists have thought of all this before now.  I can’t believe the Court and other legal scholars haven’t discounted these ideas after all this time.”

Judge:  “Humph!”  The old man muttered under his breath.  “Depends on whose court and what was allowed, I think.  There was a time when fact, that is the self evident, spoke for itself and was so regarded.  Now the most obvious is not allowed without challenge and must be expounded on by one or another expert.  This inclination points to one of the more disturbing trends of our time.”

Young woman:  “What do you mean?”

Judge: “I think it should be obvious. If the activities of the courts are viewed overtime anyway.  Our institutions in general and the courts in particular are becoming less and less bulwarks of principle and ever increasingly instruments of expediency.  Disregarded is the fact that beyond such bulwarks lie only chaos.”

Young woman: “But isn’t it the duty of government, including the court system, to identify and correct social, economic, political and whatever injustice it can?”

Judge: “I have a great deal of trouble with that notion.  Apart from the fact the the purpose of the Court is to contain the excesses of the legislative branch, it opens the door to the personal biases of the Judiciary.  Let me give you a hypothetical example even though you haven’t had courtroom experience.  Suppose you are a prosecutor in some Midwestern City.  Let’s say it’s 1968, before Roe.  And let’s say you have been assigned the prosecution of someone who has been charged with participation in an illegal abortion.  You are in the process of jury selection and it is your turn to question a prospective juror, an intelligent young woman in her late twenties.  And you ask her one question. How do you feel about abortion?  And she replies: ‘I think the legalization of abortion is just another step that has to be taken as we go down the road to the full emancipation of women.’  Now, as the prosecutor, on the basis of this answer alone, would you impanel this potential juror?  If you would, why would you, if not, why not?”

Young woman: “Of course not.  She obviously would be prejudicial to my case and favorably disposed to the defense.”

Judge: “Exactly.”  He smiled his slight sly smile.  “The statement she hypothetically made in response to your question.  Would you like to make a guess as to who actually said that?

Young woman: “Thinking for a moment, she responded “I can’t imagine.”

Judge:  “Justice Harry A. Blackmun said that, on April 7th of 1994 after he had retired from the bench in response to a journalist from the Chicago Tribune.”

Young woman: In a low gasp “My God.  You’re not serious.”

Judge: “Yep. The same Justice who said in the preamble to Roe that it was the duty of the Court to resolve the issue “without emotion or predilection.”

“So you see my dear, it has been my experience that whenever justice is qualified in social, economic, political or whatever terms it too often ceases to be justice and becomes a social, economic political or whatever expediency.  True justice is evident of itself and needs no qualification.  If it does, chances are the remedy does not lie in the courtroom.  To place it there as a matter of course may ultimately threaten the Republic itself.  But that is for another time, I think.  The wife will be expecting me for dinner shortly.  We’ll do battle on this again sometime, and hammer once more on the sword of justice.”

Young woman:  She smiled at the idea and responded that she would enjoy a rematch.  “Yes. But I would hate to have to take you on in the courtroom, at least just yet.”

Judge: “Yes—-he mumbled, that is what it’s all about for the likes of us.  That’s where the prize is won or lost.  At the jousting place of minds.”

Young woman: “Prize?” She raised an eyebrow at the thought.

Judge: “Justice.” He replied, on his way out the door—–”Justice is the prize.”

Copyright 1998
theBushwhacker  
Truth is patient and waits in ambush
for both the lie and the liar.

Feb 10

Proof of Life: Notes and Rebuttal on the presumptions of Roe vs Wade.

Proof of Life: Notes and Rebuttal on the presumptions of Roe vs Wade.

©by theBushwhacker.com


In the 1973 Supreme Court Decision Roe vs Wade the Court embraced an unprovable negative presumption that life was not present in the unborn fetus and therefore did not enjoy the condition of personage and therefore the abortion process could  destroy neither.  Justice Blackmun added the following proviso.

“If this suggestion of person hood is established,…… the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.” (Blackmun;Row vs. Wade pg. 179 Reports ref. to Texas statute on abortion.)

NOTE: The initial and fundamental presumption of all law is that life is present and that it belongs to a human being i.e. a person.  This is so because the law is only for the living and the only respondents are persons.  Therefore the presumption.


The Constitution requires only three things pertinent to the abortion issue.  They are:

1.  Presence of life. (When life begins is irrelevant.  The Constitution is not concerned with this phenomena and law does not,cannot, protect it. )
2.  Personage, ie. species.
3.  If the above are established in the affirmative then due process is required before you can kill it.

Proof of Life:

The living ultimately become the nonliving. The nonliving never become the living. Therefore life is either present or it’s not and life never arises spontaneously. It follows that life must be present from the point of conception until death occurs. If life is not present at conception it can never be present at any point subsequent to conception because it cannot arise spontaneously.                                                                                                         Therefore life begets only life.                                                

Proof of Species.

All living things are a product of a reproductive process, either sexual or asexual.

The reproduction of anything, be it specie of coin in your pocket, a fender for your car, a community of identical houses and so-on, requires a constant template of some type to determine what specie of thing will be reproduced.  That template may be a die, a mold, a set of plans or instructions, a digital program etc.etc..  Among the living that template is genetics.  Species among the living is a property of genetics and nothing else.

Therefore if the living being in question is of human origin and human destiny it can only be regarded as human.  If it is human two things become immediately apparent.

First, if it is human, it is a member of a species.  If it is a member of a species its being constitutes an entity of life rather than an undifferentiated or differentiated tissue of life such as a skin cell.

Second, if its specie is human, it enjoys the condition of personage.

This truth is irrefutable within the common meaning of our common language.  The product of human procreation is a living human entity and therefor a person.  The law and the Constitution do not permit spurious conjecture or supposition.

The Agenda of the Court:

The above constitute empirical evidence of forensic quality that was and is within immediate and easy reach of the Court but ignored.  The response of the Chief Justice who authored Roe vs Wade to a direct question posed by a journalist from the Chicago Tribune following his retirement from the bench betrayed his violation of duty and the agenda of the Court.

“It was the step that had to be taken as we go down the road toward the full emancipation of women.” (Blackmun, 4/7/1994 Chicago Tribune.

It should be clear that the sole purpose of the decision was not to preserve the privacy of the pregnant female, but to emancipate her from the responsibility for the consequences of her sexual activity.

Exception:

Note: As stated by the Court “the law deals in the known, not the unknown”, and therefore the knowable rather than the unknowable.  The fertilized ovum is therefore not protected by law until it attaches to the womb and gestation begins such as its forced removal would cause its death.  This is an unknowable circumstance.  This means that all current methods of contraception that prevent the zygote from attaching to the uterine wall such that gestation can begin are protected by law.  The female has the right to prevent pregnancy, but not to abort a pregnancy causing the death of the individual that resides within her without due process.  The same applies to those who perform such procedures.   Circumstances resulting in development of the fetus, such as ectopic pregnancies, etc. which threaten the life of the mother or are a result of the rape of a minor or forced submission but not limited to these could be expedited through an administrative review board. This is for the states to decide so long as due process is observed.

Unintended and unanticipated Consequences:

Our so-called Social Security system is based on the assumption that the benefits of the demographic population in retirement will be paid by a tax levied back on the demographic of those still in the labor force.  Unfortunately, the demographic of the former exceeds the demographic of the latter by  by several generations.  Each of those generations, as they retire, overlap the debt obligations to those who preceded them into retirement.  Thus the productive tax debit from those still in the labor demographic must grow ever greater over time.  This demographic continues to shrink in relation to demand as time elapses.  Our current birth rate is approximately four million live births annually.  Since 1973, the year Roe vs Wade legalized abortion, in the vicinity of 50 million potential workers were eliminated from the future work force and will never arrive in the work place to pay their F.I.C.A tax.  This constitutes a 20% deficit in what should have been the natural birth rate of the nation to say nothing of those precluded, albeit legitimately, by modern birth control methods.  Thus the debt obligation of the Social Security Trust must inevitably fall on the General Treasury.  This appears to now be the case.

How can the Nation expect the younger generations entering the workforce from this time on to produce the wealth necessary to support and sustain the multiple layers of generations who proceeded them into retirement and at the same time provide for the needs of their own families, educate their young at highly inflated costs, pay for reasonable amounts of insurance to protect them against the hazards of life, and at the same time prepare himself and the spouse for their own retirement needs and the needs of the economically disenfranchised for whatever cause?

Believe it or not, there may be a way.   See the Greatest Irony of Economic History.


Help promote this idea.  Embarrass the Supreme Court with their own errors.   Roe vs. Wade is vulnerable as a matter of law.  The Court holds forth no body of empirical evidence of forensic quality that support the assumptions, assertions and conclusions reached by Blackmun and the Court in Roe.  It is based entirely on meager precedents and subjective assumptions. See The Servants of Expediency and Ockham’s Razor and Roe vs. Wade.  Visit our promotional products on www.Zazzle.com/thebushwhacker .  T-shirts, mugs and bumper stickers are available.  “Life begets only Life.”

©theBushwhacker .com



May 21

The Servants of Expediency, a commentary on Roe vs. Wade

The Servants of Expediency, a commentary on Roe vs. Wade.

1/27/1999(Blackmun’s comments from Roe vs. Wade in blue.)

The following is an objective and factual analysis of Roe Vs Wade.  It makes no purchase of religion or morality.

A careful reading of the Decision reveals that Roe contains no empirical evidence of forensic quality supporting the assumptions , assertions and conclusions reached by Blackmun and the Court.  It is entirely a work of supposition.  The intended purpose, as indicated by Blackmun at the end of his career on the bench,  was to emancipate the female from the consequences of her sexual activity.

“It was the step that had to be taken as we go down the road to the full emancipation of women.” Blackmun, April 7, 1994

1. ” 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……. As we have noted, the common-law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes “viable”, that is, potentially able to live outside the mothers womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks….. In short, the unborn have a never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” (Blackmun; Roe vs. Wade Page 181 Reports). With these words Justice Blackmun, the author of Roe vs. Wade, dismissed his obligation to the establishment of truth, justice, the mandates of the Constitution, and ignored the very standards of evidence set forth by the Court and himself.

2. The Constitution requires three things that are pertinent and fundamental to the disposition of the unborn and the abortion issue. The first is that life must be present in the unborn being in question. When it begins is of no consequence. If this requirement is met, the Constitution then requires that the living being in question be a member of the human species, i.e. a person. If this condition is met,  the Constitution then requires that due process be extended to this individual before its life can be taken. Instead of identifying and dealing with these basic and essential elements Blackmun and the Court embraced two unprovable negative assumptions. First, that life was not present in the unborn and, second, that it did not enjoy the condition of personage.  The following examination of the errors of fact, logic and law contained in Roe vs. Wade will demonstrate that in doing so he foisted a fraud of reason and purpose upon the Court and the American people.

3. Justice Blackmun held that since philosophers, doctors, theologians, and so forth could not agree on when life begins it was not the duty of the Court to do so either. By such a narrow interpretation he digressed from the issue and avoided the duty he was most certainly obligated to perform. Although the Constitution is not concerned with when life begins and makes no reference to such a phenomenon, it is most definitely concerned with the presence of life as it pertains to persons and forbids the taking of such life without due process. It therefore follows that Mr. Blackmun and the Court were bound to make a determination as to the presence or absence of life before issuing license to those who might take it. Reasonable doubt is a well-established principle of law, the very purpose of which is to forestall injustice. Justice Blackmun acknowledged such doubt existed in his own mind when he commented “If this suggestion of person hood is established,…… the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.” (Row vs. Wade pg. 179 Reports ref. to Texas statute on abortion.) (Note: On trial for its life would not the fetus be spared on this comment by the prosecuter alone ?)  The life, humanness and personage of the unborn could have been determined quite readily by applying careful thought to simple prima facie evidence that was within immediate and easy reach of the Court.  Instead, Justice Blackmun and the Court required the American people to accept their notion as law that the mechanism responsible for propagtion of life can do so in the absence of life.  No effort was made to describe or clarify the validity of such theory.

4. The history of human experience, which predates ancient attitudes, the thinking of the Stoics and philosophers, and all common and statutory law, teaches consistently that the living, by cessation of life, become non-living, and that the non-living cannot become the living. We can deduce from these observations two essential truths.

5. First, life is either present or it is not. (This is a tautology, a statement of inherent truth.)

6. Second, no specie of life ever arises spontaneously.  Reproduction is required and may be either sexual or asexual.

7. If these statements are true, it then follows that life must be present from the moment of conception until death occurs. Stated another way, if life is not present at conception it can never be present at any point subsequent to conception. This is so because life cannot arise spontaneously. Therefore life begets only life.   Based on these self-evident truths, this conclusion is inescapable. When life begins is irrelevant. It is the presence of life that is essential. It is not necessary to resort to any unique or particular theory of life, only readily available fact and common linear logic.

“Therefore life begets only life.”

8. Further, the reproduction of any species of thing, living or non-living, requires the existence of a template which determines its species. That template can be a die, a mold, a design set down graphically or a set of instructions, etc.  Among the living that template is genetics. Among the living species is a property of genetics and nothing else. If the life in question is of human origin and of human destiny, then it can only be regarded as human and therefore a member of a species. If it is a member of a species then its being constitutes both an entity of life, as opposed to a differentiated or undifferentiated tissue of life, and, if human, a person.

9. Finally, if the living entity in question is a person it is entitled to the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment and due process before its life can be taken. That such simple and valid syllogisms were easily discoverable by the Court and yet not considered is most curious. Were they not self-evident? Were they not forensic? If not, why not?   The Court, which did not confine itself to what meager legal precedent was available to justify its course but instead went to the thinking of the AMA, the ancient thinkers and healers and other extra judicial authorities and found no compelling case for recognizing the possibility of unborn human life, yet could not go here.  The empirical was simply ignored.

10. Fundamental to the errors of logic in Roe vs. Wade is the failure of its authors to understand at even a rudimentary level the nature of the phenomenon with which they were dealing but, also, an inadequate command of the language with which they reasoned. For example, they equated viability with the onset of life: ” With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the compelling point is viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications.” (pg. 183 Reports) It should be noted that the Constitution does not protect life according to how “meaningful” it is or for that matter how ‘viable’ it is. The only qualification is personage. The decision’s authors further declare: “The protection of the fetus when it has acquired life is a legitimate concern of the State…… When life is present is a question we do not try to resolve. While basically a question for medical experts, as stated by Mr. Justice Clark, it is of course, caught up in matters of religion and morality.” This seems a peculiar position for a court of law that “does not deal in speculation.” but rather “deals in reality, not obscurity,…. the known rather than the unknown.” (pg. 191 and 192 Reports.) If the cloak of mystery concealing the life phenomenon was so impenetrable or ‘obscure’ to the Court, did not this standard require the Court to either define and resolve the issue factually, thus removing doubt, or forgo the issue altogether?  Does obscurity permit proceeding on the basis of unsupportable and speculative assumptions and potentially fallacious conclusions?

11. The word viable is rooted in the Latin vitameaning life. According to Webster’s dictionary, it means “likely to live,” or “possessing the ability to grow and develop; as viable spores, seeds or eggs etc.” According to Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, it means “capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside of the womb.” In other words, the word viable denotes potential,— to live, to grow, to develop, rather than the actual presence of the life process which is expressed by the word vital or vitality. (E.g. Medical attendants ascertain ‘vital signs’ not ‘viability’ signs to determine the presence of life.)

12. According to Justice Douglas, quoting Justice Clark, the law does not recognize potential and therefore viability, only the actual presence of life, or vitality: To say that life is present at conception is to give recognition to the potential, rather than the actual.” (pg. 191 Reports) The Constitution does not protect viability, it protects vitality, or the actual presence of unqualified life as it pertains to persons. Nor does any work of science or medicine equate viability with the beginning or onset of life. At best, viability merely indicates the presence of life. If a being has the potential to grow and develop beyond the womb it must first be alive or possess vitality. Yet here the Court chose to use the medical connotation of a term denoting potential in its narrow application to the postpartum fetus, ignoring its broader overall meaning. This usage in no way precludes life or vitality, i.e. the “actual”,within the womb. Indeed, the growth and development of the embryo or fetus within the womb, before the 24th week of gestation, qualifies it by definition as viable and therefore vital or alive. To accept the idea of non-viability during fetal development requires the presumption of a period of gestation that can only be referred to as pre-viable or pre-living. Such a concept is nowhere defined, entertained, or described in any dictionary, encyclopedia, or credible work of science or medicine or law. Furthermore, life, or vitality, may be present in the absence of viability. For example, an individual in the final stages of a terminal disease could be said to have little or no remaining viability or potential to grow or develop or continue on, yet life, or vitality, still remains and is protected by due process. The decision of the Court to embrace a speculative and arbitrary notion regarding viability or viable potential over the knowable and certain condition of vitality contradicts the standards of evidence established by the Court.

13. In considering the matter of personage as it applies to the unborn, Blackmun again demonstrated his intellectual incapacity to embrace this issue. Apparently he felt he could pursue a line of logic holding that, in the absence of personage, the presence of life becomes moot. According to Blackmun: “The Constitution does not define ‘person’ in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to ‘person’. The first, in defining citizens, speaks of ‘persons born or naturalized in the United States’…. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates with the any assurance that it has any possible prenatal application….. All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word ‘person’, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented….. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” (pg. 182 Reports)(Note: During much of the 19th century blacks and Indians were often not “recognized in the law as persons in  the whole sense.”) Blackmun’s statements beg the question: Does the law define our common language or does our common language give meaning to the law? The purpose of the Constitution is not to define personage but to contain tyranny. However, it might be noted that the Constitution requires prior personage as a condition of bestowing citizenship. Persons born, persons naturalized. Not a cat born, or a dog, but a person born. Personage is the prerequisite, not the achievement. Where in law is it established that birth bestows personage or membership in the human race?  The birth process merely reveals the “actual” to the eye.  It does not determine what is or is not.

14. That these things point to an inadequacy of previous law and logic, not to the presence or absence of life or personage of the unborn, does not seem to occur to Blackmun. The law does not specifically include or preclude the life or personage of the unborn.  However the law is for the living and the only respondents are human.  Therefore the initial and fundamental assumption of law is that life is present and personage presumed.  It is the absence of life that must be certified. This being the case, should not the Court have made such a determination before proceeding on the assumption that the unborn was not a person or that life was not present? Was it reasonable to grant sanction to those who might take such life without some logical and valid test for its absence or presence? By analogy would it be reasonable for the Food and Drug Administration to issue approval for a new drug without first testing for its potential lethality? Does ignorance or failure of reason or intellectual inconvenience discharge discovery of truth?

15. Let us expound on the obvious for moment. Among the living, what is a person? A human being, of course. This is what it says in any dictionary. Blackmun, quoting Clark, acknowledges this: “No prosecutor has ever returned a murder indictment charging the taking of the life of a fetus. This would not be the case if the fetus constituted human life.” (pg. 191 Reports) Indeed, a human is a person and a person is a human. (The legally established corporate entity not withstanding.) The point is this. If the Constitution protects persons, it must also protect humans. Therefore, if the life in question is human, it qualifies for protection. The matter of personage is not complicated. There is no great mystery here. To reiterate, the reproduction of anything implies—indeed, requires—the existence of a template. Among the living, that template is genetics. Humanness and personage are not acquired, but are dictated by genetic instruction. The unborn human being is simply a person at a very early stage of development. The Constitution does not qualify or withhold its protection for this cause.

16. Another area of Roe in which the authors demonstrated a lack of faculty pertains to formation as a requirement for the establishment of life. Justice Douglas quoting Justice Clark :“The unfertilized egg has life, and if fertilized, it takes on human proportions…. When sperm meets egg life may eventually form, but quite often it does not….The phenomenon of life takes time to develop, and until it is actually present, it cannot be destroyed. Its interruption prior to formation would hardly be a homicide…. (Pg. 191 Reports)  and “it equates the value of embryonic life immediately after conception with the worth of life immediately before birth” thus implying that stage of development bestows a basis for discrimination, i.e. that the life of a child may not be worth that of an adult and, unwittingly, that life is indeed present immediately beyond the point of conception yet not worthy of protection. This line of logic seems fundamentally flawed.  It can only be regarded as an unsupported logical fallacy.   Granted, the embryo, before attachment to the uterine wall and the onset of gestation can have no standing in law, but Douglas apparently did not deem this distinction necessary for the sake of his argument.

17. Form does not reliably indicate the presence or absence of life. Its use as such is again in contradiction with the standard of the Court regarding “speculation”. (Pg. 191 Reports) The Court makes this suggestion, and then fails to specify or even comment on what amount of “formation” is necessary before life is established. Nor does the court equate formation with viability or set forth any clear statement of evidence as to why formation should be a criterion in the first place.  Since life is either present or it is not, since its onset cannot be spontaneous, since the Court deals in the “known” not the “unknown”, since “the compelling point is viability” which the Court places at “about” “24” to “28” weeks, what knowable and non-speculative standard does the Court suggest?  What sort of “Court speak” has been created here??

18. ‘Formation’ refers to the process by which ‘form’ is the consequence. In nature numerous things may be observed over time to take form. Crystals form, canyons form, clouds form, and so forth. Each of these formations is a consequence of the process that formed them, such as crystallization, erosion, or condensation. Life also is a function of process. Whatever form it takes is incidental to, and a consequence of, that process. Do not the dead, prior to decay, have just as much form as the living? It is the process that is of the essence, not the physical being. Nothing occurs in the absence of process. The process is life.

Note: If nothing happens in the absence of process then the question must be asked: If as the Court claims life is not present from the point of conception until the onset of “viability”  then what process, other than the life process is it?  What mechanism is responsible for taking the fertilized ovum from conception to the onset of life in “about” 24 to 28 weeks?? What does the Court suggest??  Where is the empirical evidence??

19. At issue is not when life begins, but rather when does the host parent become obligated to sustain life once it is present? The answer here can be discerned by an allegory.

20. Two mountain climbers are about to ascend a mountain. The more experienced one begins the climb to a ledge and stops there to rest. The second climber throws up his rope. The first climber accepts the rope and makes it secure. The second climber begins to make his ascent. The first climber, though not in any danger, and for reasons of his own, suddenly changes his mind, reaches down and cuts the rope, causing the second climber to fall to his death. Needless to say, the first climber has perpetrated a grave injustice upon the second.

21. Suppose, however, the first climber had not accepted the rope of the second climber and secured it. Certainly, the second climber would have taken another path, and, as in the case of the (unattached) fertilized ovum, it also would lead to  death—but not at the expense of justice. In other words, the obligation to sustain the life begun by the host parent does not actually begin until her body has accepted the attachment of the embryo. Simply and generally stated, the law permits us to allow death to occur, but not cause death to occur. The law, as Blackmun related, deals with “the known rather than the unknown” and therefore the knowable rather than the un-knowable.

22. The essential argument of Roe vs. Wade can be reduced to the right of the host parent to continue to exercise authority over her own body at the expense of the individual who resides within her, which the Court chooses to recognize, vs. the right of that individual to personage and protection of the law, which the Court chooses not to recognize. In doing so, the Court has decided to ignore the fact that the host parent, acting on her own authority, has already engaged in an act, the very purpose and consequence of which is procreation, and having done so, must by all reasonable logic inherit responsibility for that consequence. The first requirement of freedom is that the individual must possess authority over him or her self. Inherent in all authority is the responsibility for the consequences of the exercise of that authority. Can the sole purpose of abortion be the absolution of inherent obligations? For the sake of what expediency?

23. Yet the protection of the law as it extends to the unborn individual may not be absolute. The rights of the fetus must be protected within the framework of the Constitution but only as the demands of justice, liberty, responsibility, and the unwritten laws of nature may require. For example, a female impregnated before the legal age of consent may not be considered to have acted on her own authority and, thus, might be excused from her circumstance just as the victim of a forceful rape. Such circumstances pose a gray area were one injustice must be weighed against another. Here a legislative body may find just cause to permit the premeditated homicide of a fetus so long as it is extended due process. If the fetus was not conceived with the cooperation (and therefore by the consensual authority) of the host parent, then the host might petition the court or an established judicial authority for the expedited  removal of this occupant. Any law which imposes an injustice as a consequence of injustice must not withstand in a free society.

24. In nature abortion may occur spontaneously. Fetus’ which are developing improperly or incompletely are very often expelled by the host as a conservative efficiency of the reproductive mechanism and to protect the species at-large from further harm. In nature only the individuals delivered fully intact and competent to cope with their environment survive. Man is the only species which has the option to intervene between the incompetent individual and its environment to mitigate the needs and demands of each. Freedom, however, is the domain of the competent. To the degree that others must bear responsibility for the incompetent, individual authority is forfeited. This imposes an injustice on all parties. Freedom must therefore be weighed against mercy and a threshold of reasonable expectation established.

25. In the preamble of the decision, Justice Blackmun stated: “Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and predilection.” At the end of his career, when asked about his watershed decision, Blackmun replied “It was the step that had to be taken as we go down the road to the full emancipation of women.”(Quote attributed 4/7/1994 Chicago Tribune.) What competent prosecutor would empanel a juror who expressed such a sentiment? Clearly, his words betrayed a mind-set and an agenda in conflict with an impartial court. Was this decision a misguided attempt to provide a pragmatic solution to a pressing social, political or economic problem?   Was the sole purpose of the Courts decision to “emancipate” the female from the consequences of her sexual activity? Was it, as Justice Rehnquist suggested, an act of judicial legislation rather than jurisprudence? This is what the evidence indicates.

26. The reasons for the existence or absence of law are sometimes silent or obscure. Law, however, too often becomes the servant of expediency. Whenever justice is qualified in social, economic, political, or whatever terms it usually ceases to be justice and becomes expediency. True justice is evident of itself and needs no qualification. When a host parent, without compelling cause, exercises her authority at the convenient expense of the individual residing within her, she perpetrates an injustice. The judicial sanction of injustice is tyranny. No social tapestry of a free people can tolerate a single thread of tyranny. The same loom that weaves in one thread of expedient injustice can weave in another. The Supreme Court must move to redress its error.

Bibliography: U. S. Supreme Court Reports

Blackmun’s quote: “It was the step—” from Chicago Tribune article by Glen Elsasser, 4/7/1994.

Copyright 1989-1998-1999 6 pages  This is an entirely original work by the author.

James Kipling ****

3940 words, 26 paragraphs

All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.

Modified 9/18/99 and 1/14/2000


Please note that no unique theory of life was offered within the preceding argument.  Every effort was made to maintain a secular thesis founded on the empirical and forensic.  Questions and comments formulated within the parameters of respectful reason are welcome.  All else will be ignored and removed.


Truth is patient and waits in ambush for both the lie and the liar. theBushwhacker.  1986

When the bulwarks of principle are battered down the floodgates of expediency are thrown open.  Over their remains will march the agents of tyranny. tbeBushwhacker  2006



Oct 09

Ockham’s Razor and Roe vs. Wade

“Truth is patient and waits in ambush for both the lie and the liar.”

-The Bushwhacker

Ockham’s razor is a scientific and philosophic rule or principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or “shaving off,” those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae or “law of succinctness”. We employ it here as it requires that the simplest of competing theories explaining unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.

1.  The requirements of the Constitution.

Any analysis of Roe Vs Wade must be accomplished within the language of the Constitution.  Under the American Constitution the state is obligated to exercise its powers with extreme deference to the rights of the individual.  Certain of these rights are so crucial to the establishment and maintenance of a free society that special amendments, i.e. the Bill of Rights, were added to the Constitution to specifically stay the hand of the state when the exercise of its powers placed it in conflict with the interests of the individual.  The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments specifically prohibit the taking of a human life without due process of law. The exception of privacy or meaningfulness of life is no where mentioned. The Fourteenth Amendment expands this guarantee by prohibiting any state from denying a person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

The Constitution extends these guarantees to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.  No other qualification is made.  The only conditions which can be identified anywhere in the Constitution are life, which is presumed to be present, and personage, which is a given condition of the human specie.  When life begins, stage of development, age, environment, meaningfulness of life, potential, viability, morality, religion nor any other condition are anywhere mentioned and do not compromise or modify these guarantees.  In Roe Vs Wade Justice Blackmun acknowledged, regarding the status of the fetus and referring to the Texas statute on abortion, that “If this suggestion of person hood is established,……the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.” In other words, the only requirements held forth by the Constitution regarding the disposition of the unborn are first, that life be present, second, that it belong to a person, i.e. a human being, and third, if these criteria are met in the affirmative, that due process be extended before its life can be taken.  (NOTE: blue text is taken from Roe vs. Wade, Reports)

2. Proof that life is present:

The spirit and language of the Constitution are such that the presumption of the presence of  life, as it pertains to persons, must always preclude any assumption that life is not present.  In every action involving law the presence of life is presumed. This is so because the law is for the living and the only respondents are persons. It is the absence of life that must be verified and certified by the State or responsible authority in every instance along with the cause of death, if known.  Even the presumption of death, in the absence of a corpus, involves a lengthy lapse of time and a detailed process to accomplish.  It was therefore an automatic burden of the Court to establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, that life was not present in the unborn individual before issuing license to those who might take it.  This was a duty that the Court not only failed to accomplish but rejected out of hand.

The redundant and consistent history of human experience teaches two constants pertinent to this issue.

First, living things eventually and always become non-living things, i.e. they die.

Second, non-living things never become living things.

From these two facts we can derive two truths.

First, life is either present or it is not.  This is a statement of inherent truth, a tautology.

Second, no specie of life ever arises spontaneously i.e. of itself.

If these things are true then it follows that life must be present from the point of conception until death occurs.  This conclusion is inescapable.  When life begins is of no consequence.  It is the presence of life that is of the essence. This is a simple but valid Aristotelian syllogism leading to a simple, valid and irrefutable conclusion.  Life begets only life.  It may survive only a short time and then die, but first it was alive.

Stated another way, if life is not present at conception it can never be present at any point subsequent to conception.

3. Species and personage.

All living things are a product of a reproductive process, sexual or asexual.  The reproduction of anything requires the existence of a template, be it a die, a blue print, a set of repeatable instructions or whatever to determine what species of thing will be reproduced.  Among the living that template is genetics.  Species among the living is a property of genetics and nothing else.  Therefore if the living being in question is of human origin and human destiny then between the point of its origin and any time in the future it can only be regarded as human.  If it is human then two things become immediately apparent.  First its being constitutes a species of being and therefore an entity of life as opposed to a differentiated or undifferentiated tissue of life. (Example: a skin cell is a differentiated tissue of life.) Second, if its species is human, it is a person. These things are valid within the plain meaning of our common language. No qualification is needed. Nor is qualification permissible.

4.  Due Process.

As quoted above, Justice Blackmun acknowledged that “If this suggestion of person hood is established…..the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.” In other words due process is required before its life can be taken. (Note: the use of the word abortion is applicable only if the fertilized ovum has successfully attached to the uterine wall and gestation has begun such that forcefully removing it would cause its death. As Blackmun stated, the law “deals in— the known, not the unknown”, and therefore the knowable rather than the unknowable.)

5.  Additional unsupportable assumptions contained in Roe: (A few are briefly examined below.)

First: Blackmun’s position requires the acceptance of the notion that there is a period of gestation between conception and the onset of ‘viability’ (about 24 weeks) that can only be referred to as pre-living or pre-viable.  Such a notion is unique among all pertinent schools of thought.

Second: Blackmun holds forth that the law “deals in reality, not obscurity,….the known rather than the unknown” and “does not deal in speculation” and, quoting Justice Clark, that the law recognizes the “actual” and not “potential”.

There are two words that derived from the ancient Greek word vita, which means life.  One is viability, which refers to the ability of a living thing to grow, to develop, to continue on or live.  In other words it denotes ‘potential’.  The other modern word derived from vita is vitality.  This word refers to the presence of the life process. In other words the ‘actual’ existence or presence of life. Yet the word Blackmun chose to establish his ruling was ‘viability’ i.e. the word denoting potential, and ignored the word denoting the actual presence of the life process.  In other words he embraced the ‘unknown’ and unknowable rather than the knowable, the presence of the life process.  In light of his views on ‘formation’ this point becomes crucial.

Third: The decision states (Justice Douglass concurring quoting Justice Clark) that “When sperm meets egg life may eventually form, but quite often it does not…” and “The phenomenon of life takes time to develop, and until it is actually present it cannot be destroyed. Its interruption prior to formation would hardly be a homicide….” (italics mine.)

In nature numerous things may be observed over time to take form.  Crystals form, clouds form, canyons form and so on.  Each of these formations is a consequence of the process that formed them, such as crystallization, condensation, erosion etc.  Life also is a function of process.  Whatever form it takes is incidental to, and a consequence of, that process.  Do not the dead, prior to decay, have just as much form as the living?  It is the process that is of the essence, not the formation.  Nothing happens in the absence of process.  The process is life.

Fourth: Blackmun looks to the law and the Constitution for a definition of personage and finding none declares that “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” His statements beg the question: Does the law define our common language or does our common language give meaning to the law?  The purpose of the Constitution is not to define personage but to contain tyranny.  It should be noted that the Constitution requires prior personage as a condition of bestowing citizenship.  Citizenship is bestowed on persons born and persons naturalized.  Personage is the prerequisite, not the achievement, and is therefore assumed.  Where in law is it established that birth bestows personage or membership in the human race?

Fifth: Blackmun, on the basis of meager precedent and an inconclusive examination of the thinking of the Stoics, ancient healers and philosophers, English common law, the American Medical Association, and so forth decided that life must not be present in the unborn.  “When life is present is a question we do not try to resolve.” To assume otherwise would have required a determination of its species.  This he carefully avoided as well.  His position also required that viability and the acquisition of life be achieved in the absence of the life process.  In other words, conception and the process of gestation plays no significant or compelling roll in the reproductive process and is accomplished in the absence of life.   “When sperm meets egg life may eventually form, but quite often it does not…” This assumes that the onset of life is a coincidental and spontaneous occurrence only casually associated with the reproductive process.  Ignored is the fact that viability is a function of vitality, not visa versa, and is meaningless in the absence of life. In other words, the requirement of vitality precedes the onset of viability.  Life must first be present before the possibility of potential can emerge.   The notion that life is somehow ‘acquired’ at about the 24th or 28th week of gestation and its presence determined by the onset of viability is, to put it generously,  unique.  Stated another way, one cannot ‘become viable’ and then become vital or alive.  Viability is a condition of vitality or life, not it’s determinate.

Sixth: In addition, Blackmun’s assumption that life was not present in the unborn is not supported by any credible body of fact or evidence. Blackmun and the Court assume the validity of an un-provable negative  (Blackmun, his disclaimer not withstanding, had to make this assumption in order to reach his conclusion.  The presence of life requires determination of species.  Determination of species would have required the protection of the law.) To Blackmun such meager evidence as presented itself rested upon the ignorant assumptions of ancient traditions.  It was on these that he built is argument on ‘the compelling point’ of ‘viability’.

Conversely, the probability that life is present is supported by virtually every credible source within reach of the Court.  He had only to ask himself, “can the process responsible for propagating life do so in the absence of life?”  and  “would it be reasonable to assume that it could?”  From here he would have been required to investigate and deduce a conclusion other than the one he reached.

NOTE: Again, the initial and fundamental presumption of all law is that life is present and that it belongs to a human being. This is so because the law is for the living and the only respondents are persons.

Seventh: Blackmun assumes that the individual has the right to privacy, which is correct.  He also assumes that the individual has the right to do just about anything they want with their body, including having an abortion.  This is only partly correct.  In a free society the individual only has unfettered authority, and therefore the right, to do those things he can do for himself and to himself and then only within reasonable limits that may be imposed by law regarding the legitimate interests of the State.  For example, the individual has the right to buy or build or otherwise acquire a house for himself.  But he does not inherently have the right to a house.  He has the right to acquire and be secure in what he has acquired but not the right to have in the absence of acquisition, i.e. his ability to acquire.   In the matter of abortion, the female does not automatically have the right to an abortion.  She may, however, have the right to petition the court or an appropriate governing body to acquire an abortion, but she does not automatically have the right to a service that must be provided by another.  Such a ‘right’ would require the forfeiture of authority by another party.  The State has the power to deny such services if the State reasonably believes it is in its best interest and its legislative bodies so decide.  The individual does not have the inherent ‘right’ to acquire a service from someone who would be in violation of  State law by rendering that service.  Until the question of the presence of life and condition of personage are properly resolved and any reasonable doubt removed a legislative body might very reasonably decide, in order to forestall the possibility of injustice and with the exception of medical emergency, that a moratorium should be placed on abortion providers as a condition of their license.  Reasonable doubt is a well established principle of law, the very purpose of which is to forestall injustice.  Blackmun, rather than resolve these doubts, acted presumptively and precipitously to preclude them.

These are a few of the more obvious errors to be found in the text of Roe.  If, as the Justice claims, “this suggestion of person hood is established,…..the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” Then all that has gone before becomes moot.

To reiterate, during the deliberations of the Court Justice Blackmun assessed the thinking of the Stoics, the ancient philosophers and healers, theologians, the AMA, British and American common law and what uncertain and meager legal precedents were available, the conflicting ideas of current thinkers and scientists, etc. and so-on, and could find no compelling theory or cause supporting the acknowledgement of the presence of life or personage of the unborn. Yet he ignored the most common and empirical evidence that was within immediate and easy reach of the Court, thus failing the test readily available within the principle of Ockham’s Razor.

Footnotes

pg 7. Ockham’s Razor and Roe Vs. Wade

Ockham’s Razor: Webster’s Dictionary and Wikipedia

Blackmun’s Quotes: (in Blue)1973 Supreme Court Reports, Roe Vs. Wade

All else is the original work of the author.