Saturday, June 25, 2022


Just a few snark-free comments on Roe-v-Wade.

My memory of the original ruling back in the mid-70s is that the Justices felt they had to rule the way they did because there was a total lack of clarity about when "life begins" at that time.

They attempted to apply the standards-of-the-day to determine if abortion was murder: Did it stop a heart-beat? Were brain-waves present before the action? Was the action taken against somebody who was potentially viable?

The pro-abortion side claimed the baby in the mother's uterus was no different than a skin-tag, a finger-nail or a tumor. Any of those could be surgically removed any time the patient elected to have surgery.

The pro-life forces said that there was no right to abortion just as there is no right to punch another person in the nose...the right to swing one's arms ending where the other person's nose began. They claimed the baby in the mother's womb was a separate person.

The Court said the pro-life side failed to adequately make the case that the baby inside the mother's womb was a person. They said the pro-life side failed to prove the traditional tests of personhood...heart-beat, brain-function, viability.



Ultra-sound was invented and it shows heart-beats in real-time starting within a month of conception. Nobody disputes the accuracy of ultra-sound. It can be used to measure thickness of heart-walls and velocity of blood in blood vessels.

Various electromagnetic imaging techniques can show the same.


EEGs can detect fetal brain-waves by week six.

Ultrasound shows the fetus attempting to evade the cutting tools which is highly suggestive of a pain-response which is a brain function. Presumably the EEGs can also pick up fetal brainwaves that are consistent with "pain".


Approximately 50% of children born prematurely at 23 weeks of gestation survive.

The youngest preemie to survive was born at 21 weeks of gestation.

Sidebar: Suppose there are two bodies in a room. One is a mummified hoarder who was found in the attic of his house beneath a pile of National Geographic magazines six months after last seen in public. The other body is a six-year-old child who fell beneath the ice of a pond and was under-water for ten minutes.

Neither body has a measurable heartbeat or brain-waves.

If somebody shot the mummy, they would be guilty of desecrating a corpse but not homicide.

If somebody shot the six-year-old they would rightfully be charged with homicide because there are many cases of suddenly-chilled, "drowned" young people who were revived.

The difference between the two is that the six-year-old is potentially viable.

End sidebar.


The latest ruling by the Supreme Court does not over-throw Roe-v-Wade so much as revisit the ruling and use the findings of modern medical technology to fill in the gaps. Those are the same gaps the original Justices said compelled them to rule that the pro-life side had not made their case.


The "fetus" in the mother's womb is genetically different from the mother so the example of a "skin-tag" or tumor is spurious. The baby is a different the guy with the nose who got hit with the swinging arm. Nobody argues with DNA evidence.

Shortly after the mother has missed her first period the baby inside of her has a heart-beat and any competent ultrasound tech can bring it up on a computer monitor in real-time.

By the time the mother missed two periods the baby has a heart-beat and brain-waves.

Slightly after mid-term, the baby has a flip-of-the-coin odds of being viable outside his mother's womb.


  1. Elegant and logical, honest and clear.

    As a Medical sort there is but a few medical reasons for abortion.

    I know personally many women who cannot get pregnant that would happily adopt out of the womb a child to cherish, IF the system prevented the birth mother from extorting over the "gift".

    Non-political and well suited for a discussion with folks that already accept those facts over coffee or perhaps tea.

    Useless in getting a fanatical person to change their poorly chosen viewpoints and worse choices for defending their viewpoint by verbal and physical assaults on anybody who disagrees or is foolishly in their area (see definition of Riot and or Mob).

    In many locations in America self-defense against mobs isn't a right as the law as applied will crucify you in lawfare and massive debt.

    Make realistic plans on how you'd resolve a visit from a van load of "Mostly peaceful protestors" even a fair bit past the city limits as antifa is already calling for such rural attacks.

    A ole Remus said, Stay away from crowds.

    1. Lmao... halfway through reading your comment I wanted to reply with Ol Remus' admition.
      Gawd I miss him sometimes.

  2. Justice Ginsberg wrote on the weakness of the original ("penumbras and emanations") legal reasoning in Roe. In the 50 years since there have been many opportunities to enshrine Roe in law, or amendment. Most recently when President Obama was at the beginning of his 1st term. Sleeping on these chances, and relying on "demographic change" rather than a broader appeal to those who might disagree with them created this opportunity.

    Going before the court and arguing, as the Solicitor General did, that the court must overrule Roe/Case entirely or support it entirely, was an attempt to raise the stakes and hope the court blinked. Then the leak upped the ante more.

    Chief Justice Roberts looked for a middle road, but a combination of new Justices and (I believe) the Solicitor General's exhortation that it must be full support or full defeat (backstopped by the leak) brought this about. A more pragmatic argument might have saved Roe/Casey, but that wasn't the road taken.

    Unrelated to this post: I was gifted 4 small Chinese hybrid Chestnut trees a cousin has been growing from seed for a few years. I've been hardening them in the shade for a few weeks (greenhouse raised). Other than mouse protection and thoroughly watering in, am I missing something when I go to plant these?

    I'm thinking back to your post on donated trees, and don't want to waste this gift. He only had 8, and he gave me his 4 strongest.

    1. Joe writes: They like well drained soil. Don't plant them in a low spot or in heavy clay. They also do not like lime or high pH soils. Water them once-a-week for the first summer and control weeds around them for a radius of 3 feet and you should be good-to-go.

  3. Semantical, to be sure, but a point of order, if I may:
    "...the right to swing one's arms ending where the other person's nose began. "

    Actually, the "right to swing one's arm" ends much earlier in the swing - the point at which intent and capability are fully revealed. One is not required to hope the fist ceases motion prior to nose contact to undertake defensive action.

    If one's opponent produces a firearm (capability) and starts to point it in your direction (intent) you do not have to wait until he actually fires a shot to take action in self defense.


    1. Sadly, it depends on the DA and how they edit the "Facts". In Southern California any gun owner's actions is at best going to end in lawfare and deep payments to lawyers.

      Ask many a decent policeman (yes there are still some) what happens when they shoot a perp with a gun. Even their body camera data has been thrown out of court if it doesn't, please the DA.

      Judgement of Judah level Government and application of Law in many places and then IF they don't get you the Feds drop some made up "Hate Crime" on you for violating their "Civil Rights" by defending yourself.

      Worth reading Isaiah chapter 3 all the way though. Nothing new under the sun.

  4. ERJ, I submit that the Court’s reasoning regarding whether the “right” to an abortion is supported by the Constitution was based on an analysis of the scope and meaning of the term “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment, our country’s history, and some sort of “entrenched right” flowing out of the cases Roe and Casey rested on. The Court’s reasoning does not hinge on the “science,” but rather a sober analysis of the Constitution. The Court did discuss science in analyzing whether precedent compelled them to find a right to abortion, but only to illustrate how shoddy the reasoning in Roe and Casey was. Honest lefty lawyers have admitted this for decades. My socialist Con Law 2 professor chuckled to the class when attempting to explain Roe’s reasoning (Casey had yet to be issued). In short, the Court didn’t assume the role of technocrats making a medical or science based decision, but properly referred to our Country’s history and foundational documents to determine nothing in them supported the Court imposing a universal, arbitrary abortion right on the States. You’re right though - more and more the science shows that abortion at any point is murder. After all, God told us, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." He didn’t wait until 3, 6 or 9 months into gestation.

  5. As a pro-life conservative I don't see ending Roe v. Wade as doing much good. Abortion will still happen on demand and will still kill about 20% of the unborn. Amazon and Disney have stated they'll pay for their employees to cross state lines in order to kill their kids.

    Conservatives missed an opportunity to turn Roe v. Wade against the left. Vaccine mandates, vaccine status inquiries, ObamaCare were all in violation of RvW. Conservatives just never could muster the courage to use the left's weapon against them.

  6. Just think how many other Constitutional protections we know and love have spun out of that "right to privacy." /s

  7. The left side this to themselves. When it was "safe, legal and rare", I think most Americans tolerated it. But the left couldn't be satisfied with that...instead of a slice of the cake, they wanted the whole damn thing, including the crumbs that fell on the floor. Abortion on demand up to and including post birth abortion and wanting taxpayers to pay for it, finally did them in.

  8. To the commenters above:
    Roe v Wade hasn't ended. The legality of abortion has only been handed back to the states to decide. You can still abort your 6 month old fetus in New York.
    Also, I'm astonished at how many people believe the Supreme Court is a legislative body. They merely establish opinion. It's up to Congress to pass the laws.

    1. Technically, SCOTUS decides what laws are constitutional and which ones are not (and, of course, they granted themselves this power). Roe v. Wade claimed that the constitution grants medical privacy, and therefore, abortion was between the patient and their doctor. This nullified pro-life laws.

  9. I'm just gonna' leave it here : Psa 127:3
    Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

  10. Since I have not read the brief, I do not know by what argument or reasoning the SCOTUS made this ruling. But I thought the main argument for overturning Roe v Wade has always been that the Court in 1972 usurped on behalf of the federal government something that was rightfully for the individual states to decide for themselves.

    Heartbeats and brainwaves not withstanding, abortion was always an issue that under our constitution, must be debated and decided by the various state legislatures of these United States, and NOT by any branch of the federal government. I would hope that for this reason and no other, the SCOTUS based their decision in this latest ruling.

  11. You are applying logic, facts and reasoning to the issue. This is a mistake. The left is IMMUNE to logic, facts and reason.


Readers who are willing to comment make this a better blog. Civil dialog is a valuable thing.