both Alito and you are doing more than suggesting there is another way of looking at this issue. The quote of yours that I highlighted in my comment said there was no precedent whatsoever for tying the issue to the principle of privacy. (“pulled the idea out of their own ass“ were more or less your exact words.) The Dean refutes this by quoting an earlier precedent that says the right to privacy includes the right to decide when to have children.

Alito could claim at this point that, although this precedent includes the right to take contraceptives or cross their legs very tightly, it shouldn’t have included the right to remove certain items from a woman’s body which have the potential to become a rational conscious being. Why?Because according to certain religions, those items already are rational conscious beings in some metaphysical sense. However, that decision would have been a radical alteration of the precedent of which Roe is a plausible extension. It also would have violated the other constitutional principle that Roe cites extensively: the non-establishment of religion clause.

There are people on both sides of this issue that think the answer is obvious, and can be found by consulting common sense and/or scientific fact. My course on this was designed to destroy this self-confidence, by showing them how confusing this topic is when you think clearly about it. That is the strongest argument for why this is really a religious question, and why the state has no business making this decision for anyone else. So yes, I will be writing a series of articles featuring the arguments that came up during the course. Stay tuned.