Roe v. Wade (1973), was the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that resulted in a defined judicial opinion about privacy and abortion in the United States. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its decision. Roe is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history.

Pro life and pro choice advocates will always argue the ethical ramifications of this law. But law it is. And of course beyond the law is the greater question - when does life begin? at conception? at birth? somewhere in between? Religious groups will heatedly debate when the soul actually inhabits the body. This was always the great moral . scientific and ethical debate of our age.........untill now.

The recent 'Scientific Journal of Medicine' report has sent shockwave's reverberating throughout the medical community, the hallowed halls of science all the way to the Vatican itself.

Sorting through the medical jargon can be daunting, but the essence of the findings is that the brain of an infected is essentially controlled by the Necro-Mortosis virus, much like a parasite occupying a host. The brain is 'tricked' into believing the body has died. That is why it adopts all signs of mortification. No feelings of pain or other stimulation, flesh slowly decaying. "The key that lead us here was the fact that rigor mortis did not set in. We knew this must be significant to the whole process. Now we understand that the virus 'allows' the body this last motor function in order to be able to seek nutritional sustenance for the virus in a form that can only be found in warm blood and flesh." said UCLA Professor David Whister, author of the report.

So of course, here is where all focus now lies. If the brain is technically still alive, then isn't the person, or at least the body still alive also? When does death occur? after the heart stops functioning? we know this not to be the case of course, there have been many occurrences of people being 'brought back to life' after the heart stopped and the were pronounced clinically dead. We wouldn't consider these people less than alive with all the rights afforded them would we? of course not. And so should we anticipate calls for the same amount of respect for the undead? Will right to lifer advocacy groups be as vocally concerned for the newly 'dead' as they are the newly conceived?

Religious concerns are already being raised with the question, "At what point does the soul leave the body?"

"This is a startling moral dilemma" says the Head of the World Health Authority, Dr. Shayne Trinder.

Timing of this report could hardly have been worse. Only a few days ago the United Nations announced a comprehensive set of laws to deal with the handling and disposal of the undead titled "The universal code of ethics and conduct." and now many of those laws will be challenged by world wide advocacy groups?

Earlier this week, following our report on the Scientific Journal of Medicine's controversial claim that reanimators may still be 'technically' alive, we decided to run a poll to see what ZWN readers thought. The question was: Do you think reanimators are clinically dead or technically still living? Our readers gave a resounding opinion. Dead. 83% agreed. only 17% thought that the undead were anything but that.

UCSB Professor or cultural and social learning Leslie Palfrey told ZWN today "It's not surprising at all. People need to feel there is a large division between them and us. Otherwise the thought of killing your own would just be too much for most people."

Jared Richter, TN wrote: "I don't care what they are, If it was a choice between them or me and mine, it would be an easy choice."

Laura Hill, Fl agreed : "I don't want to think that they are us."

Stepan, Russia thinks otherwise: "It makes sense that they are alive still. The brain is still working isn't it? so they are alive I think.