I grow rather skeptical of debating abortion and pro-life issues sometimes because rarely do I ever encounter an argument on either side of the debate that is new or novel or has not been said in some way a hundred times before. I ran across this article today which I find all sorts of interesting. I find the logic at the end to be muddled to the point of going off the rails, but the first half is truly excellent. I have never considered the angle that the irony of the Roe v Wade decision was, in fact, adjudicated by an all male Supreme Court. I don't know why that never occurred to me, as it seems glaringly honest, but an interesting pro-feminist slant against the ruling was refreshing.
I did know that only 7 justices actually heard the case, and it was taken only as a point of procedure having to do with whether the Supreme Court even had jurisdiction to hear the case, which is why there was no lower trial or appellate court proceedings or findings of fact at all: the whole thing went straight to the Supreme Court from the very beginning.