[Synthesist]

I’m sorry that I got very excited and did not explain my point very well in my first post.

But, I think that I did make a little better attempt with second post…

Please keep my second post in mind and let me add this:

You can not induce an abortion with an abortifacient unless there is an already fertilized egg to destroy, therefore the plaintiffs imply in their argument that “life has began at conception”. To destroy this conceived life (to kill it, MURDER IT) is a sin, based on their religious belief.

If the majority of the SC did NOT agree with the plaintiff’s *argument*, they would have decided that there was no legal basis for the plaintiffs claim that life begins at conception, therefore there could be no killing (MURDER) that would considered as a religious sin.

[FreedomNotSafety]

I understand what your saying but I disagree. It was not necessary that the SC believe what the plaintiffs said about their belief. It was only necessary that they thought it was illegal to prevent the adherence to those beliefs. The SC could have believed that life begins at 40 and still find for the plaintiff. Freedom of religion means nothing if not the freedom to hold to beliefs that are not accepted or proven.

[BuckeyeTexan]

If the majority of the SC did NOT agree with the plaintiff’s *argument*, they would have decided that there was no legal basis for the plaintiffs claim that life begins at conception, therefore there could be no killing (MURDER) that would considered as a religious sin.

Now you've gone off the rails again. SCOTUS did not agree with the plaintiffs on when life begins. They didn't address it other than to state the plaintiffs' beliefs.