

“In Roe, the high court punted on the issue of when human life begins by saying: ‘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.’ This dodge of the central issue relating to abortion was not only contrary to clear science at the time, but also flawed reasoning for allowing abortion.
Flawed logic based on outdated science means the resulting decision, Roe, is ripe for revision. Even if the court’s earlier statement in Roe was correct, which it is not, it is illogical to conclude that abortion should be allowed. Such reasoning is void of intellectual credence.”
Read the full article in Townhall.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Manage your cookie preferences below:
Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.
These cookies are needed for adding comments on this website.
Google Tag Manager simplifies the management of marketing tags on your website without code changes.
Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us understand how visitors use our website.
Google reCAPTCHA helps protect websites from spam and abuse by verifying user interactions through challenges.