Let me clarify. You may have addressed the question but you did not answer it. And in that regard I really should apologize because in fact, there really is no answer. Their statement that they "need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins" and the decision they ended up rendering.....are totally incompatible.<quoted text>
"By the way you STILL have not answered my RvW question. RvW said that they need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.....the clear implication being that if they DID know, then they would take steps to legally protect that life. If they did not know the answer however, then how could they possibly render a decision that indicated they knew exactly when life did NOT exist ?(pre viability)"
I did answer....twice. Obviously you don't think I addressed this question adequately. I will concede that I may not be understanding what you're asking. It sounds convoluted. Let me try to clarify your question....
I don't know what ruling they would have made. That would be pure speculation. What I do know is they would have had to know for certain that life did NOT exist prior to viability for them to have made the decision they did.The Court did not know the answer to the question of when life begins.
You feel if they did however answer that question, they would possibly make a ruling on RvW that opposed their current ruling.
That is not what they were referring to when they mentioned the "difficult question of when LIFE begins".You also think that perhaps they did really know the answer since they were able to claim when life does *not* begin.
Okay, what criteria did they use to decide when life does *not* begin? That was part of my original answer. Life begins at conception (imo),
THAT is what they were referring to.but when does that life pass from being simply functioning cells to a living being/person.
By rendering a decision that gave women the right to choose to legally abort prior to viability without restriction and without the need for justification, they were effectively saying that life did NOT exist prior to viability. For if it did and/or if there was a possibility it did ( they acknowledged that possibility existed when they said they could not resolve the question of when life begins ) then they would have been compelled to protect it.If you killed off an amoeba would you really care about the loss of that life? Yet, if you killed off the cells just hours after conception some people here would call that the murder of a human being...so it's not about what the z/e/f is at the time of an abortion, but what it is meant to become. The dividing line is that some people will say it's a zygote or an embryo...no more than that, while others say it's a human being or a "potential" human being.
The Court deals with law, but their opinions/decisions have to be based on something more concrete than just the concept of law. The Court can claim it is a human "being", a person, at the moment of conception and so abortion would then become murder at any stage of gestation, but the court still needs a concrete foundation on which to base that decision.
The zygote/embryo is human, no question there, but it comes back to the question of: is an unborn human a "person" or a "being" and I think that is the huge fork in the road.
So what criteria did the Court use to decide when life "does not begin"?
Just one of the reasons ( not the only one ) why RvW was a terrible decision.