Why does the opinion of a judge decide when human life starts?

It makes perfect since, and points up one of the two flaws in Roe v. Wade. The first being the Federal Government has no business getting involved in the debate. According to the Constitution, each State should regulate abortion, or not, as that State sees fit.

The other, as you point out, is that a panel of Law School grads, with not a minute of training in Biology, arbitrarily decided when something was a live human and when it was not. Placing that point in the 2nd Trimester is simply arbitrary and capricious, and makes no sense from any scientific standpoint. Even a brain dead moron must realize that EITHER life begins at conception, in which case no abortion is morally defensible, OR life starts at birth, in which case any abortion is morally nuetral.

But rather like Solomon deciding to split the baby in two, the Supremes, in their arrogance and stupidity decided to base their decision on a completely non-sensical midway point between conception and birth.

EDIT: For J K - you are sort of right. Judges cannot legally "make" law. But activist judges "effectively" make laws all the time. They can choose to simply state that a law is or is not constitutional. That is their stated purpose. But they routinely go well beyond that, as they did in Roe,and in effect made it law throughout the land that abortions in the first trimester cannot be regulated, in the second trimester must be allowed, but can be regulated, and in the third trimester can be banned.

That was way more detail than either Roe or Wade was asking for.

The question is a little all over the map, it's true. ;-)

Um, currently women are allowed to have abortions in the US because it's the law. Not because pro-choice people are "special". And the job of a judge is to interpret and enforce the law.

If you mean the 1973 Supreme Court, well, it wasn't one judge who's "opinion" mattered. It was a 7 to 2 majority vote. There was a lot of debate and study and thought. The Supreme Court is supposed to do that, though I admit that it doesn't always seem that way.

Also, I don't think the judges debated when human life begins which is very philosophical. They kept it to something more concrete such as the viability of a fetus to live outside its mother's womb.

The wikipedia site provides a pretty good little synopsis. You should take a look.

Actually the judge's decision is merely a legal decision, it does not necessarily make it the right decision. The truth is, at any stage of pregnancy, if the fetus was not a living being, it would not need to be aborted, or killed. It is as simple as that. I have seen babies as young as 16 weeks when a woman had a spontaneous abortion. The baby had all the anatomical parts a full term baby has, including hair, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, fingers, toes, arms,legs, etc. What an abortion does is kill a living baby. Life begins as soon as the two cells meet and join to make another human being. I have also witnessed the results of an abortion, when the woman is bleeding so heavily they come to the hospital with the little arms and legs and other body parts comming out with the blood. The issue of abortion is a big issue, and not all are in agreement with it. But as I said, if the products of abortion were not alive, they would not have to kill it.

The courts nor any other "movement" should have no say in the matter of this scientific issue. Bioethics should update its conception of the gene.

An embryo is an individual, no matter how small.

While the embryo receives cells from the mother and the father, it is neither the mother nor the father.

Since Roe v. Wade, science has solved one of the most important of all biological riddles. Half a century later, important new implications of this contribution to science are still coming to light. The embryo is a new human life which is genetically distinct and which has

energy and a direction of its own from the moment of conception.

Because that decision was never brought up to the judges.

Judges never ruled when a life starts...thats left up to science not politics.........the only thing judges ruled was wether or not a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, far more different than what you said.

and pro choice does not mean that life started later or what not...pro-choice is the belief that women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies.

Get the terminology right

Do not forget these judges are also the same judges that will charge you with double homicide if you kill a pregnant woman....so I think when it comes to life you guys have stuff in common

Someone has to and in all honesty, judges have more experience and face more scenearios than normal people with a wider knowledge. I really think its difficult to say and DO NOT believe a judge, an expert of law NOT BIOLOGY should be allowed to judge. At least some medical professionals, preferrably those who specialize in that area should also be introduced. You are right, what makes them special? A biological fact cannot be analysed by a legal expert so you need several field specialists involved to come to the best possible outcome.

Your question makes perfect sense some judges get to feeling 'high-and-mighty' and take it upon their selves to legislate from the bench.

congress is supposed to do that. pro-choice should be choosing to engage in activities that may lead to pregnancy ----or---not to.

Life begins at conception----cause a pregnant woman to lose an unborn child and it might very well be considered murder---at any stage of development.

Get in a car accident that is your fault with a pregnant lady and she aborts-- the insurance better be prepared to shell out big bucks---at any stage of development.

You are right, it does not make sense.

Judges do have the authority to rule on legal matters. The legal question is WHO GETS TO MAKE THE DECISION?? The judge did not rule on when life begins, they ruled on who has the right to make that choice for herself. The law says that you decide for yourself, but you do not choose for others. The same as you decide which church you want to go to.. if any, but you don't make that choice for someone else.

Sorry if it seems like splitting hairs, but it is a very important hair to split. The reality is that YOU want others to be forced to accept your perspective.

You don't have to accept his opinion. You don't have to accept pro-choice opinion. You have a choice. Don't agree with him and don't have an abortion. Believe life begins at the moment of conception and don't have an abortion.

Oooohhhhh.......I see now. It's not enough that you believe something. You believe that I must believe the same thing. You believe that I must not accept my own opinion. Or the judges opinion. I must accept YOUR opinion.

See now that's where we need the lawyers and the judges.

I am anti-abortion - period.

Judges have to make decisions based on laws that are enacted. Since there laws concerning abortion, they must make a decision. You and I do not have to agree with it. They are not necessarily stating when life starts. They interpret the law and its compliance with the Constitution.