The discussion seems to me a bit garbled (not a fan of the author), but my comments here suggests it does raise some interesting issues as to concerns about what judges "believe," their "objective" and "subjective" reasoning, and so forth. My comments also might suggest how even I can be "conservative" in some senses of the word. IOW, taking a careful view of things, not going further than necessary to make a point and so forth. I find being restrained can promote your point more in some cases. Or, at least, so is my hope.
Meanwhile, various matters are being decided by the Supreme Court. It's first opinion of the term (per curiam) unanimously held that (to quote the Findlaw summary) "the circuit court erred in disposing of petitioner's remaining, unaddressed challenges to his death sentence without explanation of any sort." A lower court decision allowing "officials in Washington State from publicly disclosing the names and addresses of individuals who signed petitions seeking a voter referendum on a new gay rights law"* was temporarily blocked until the justices can act on the appeal. And, an important detainee case was granted a hearing.** The last the most important.
The first matter led to a discussion involving abortion. This discussion elsewhere concerning Terri Schiavo touches the point and raises an important issue:
parts [of the brain] that science tell us are responsible for a person's memory, thought, consciousness, emotion, personality, sense of right wrong--all of the things that make us a person, and make us different from any other person.
The single word that describes this concept, in the English language, is the word "soul."
"Katherine" accepts that this attempt to locate the soul in the physical realm is a controversial move to make, more revolutionary and upsetting to some than various other things science has done to replace religious dogma. But, it is a sound argument. Furthermore, it underlines that the "right to life" is based on something with more than mere physical breath, but "soul." And, early abortions are allowed in part because the embryo/fetus does not have that something, including "fully sentient" life. As Justice Stevens noted in another context:
Life, particularly human life, is not commonly thought of as a merely physiological condition or function. [n.19] Its sanctity is often thought to derive from the impossibility of any such reduction. When people speak of life, they often mean to describe the experiences that comprise a person's history, as when it is said that somebody "led a good life." [n.20] They may also mean to refer to the practical manifestation of the human spirit, a meaning captured by the familiar observation that somebody "added life" to an assembly.
Toss in Webster, Stevens' opinions in those opinions are definitely up there on my favorite citation meter.
---
* I'm with EV -- releasing names and addresses would be bad policy, but not unconstitutional.
** It seemed to me absurd when the lower court in effect ruled there can be a right without a true remedy. But, releasing detainees is a messy business but so is wrongful detention.