My point is that the issue has already been decided correctly at the highest legal level there is, it held for going on 4 decades and it continues to be the will of the people now.
And yet, you are completely unable to support the opinion. You understand that it was decided based on an assumption that has since been proven wrong. You can provide no credible evidence that shows that the assumption was correct and yet, you cling to it anyway. Clearly, it was not decided correctly. The nature of a correct decision by the supreme court is to be able to go to the constitution and demonstrate constitutionally that the decision was correct. Not possible with roe. Bad decision. Ultimately unsupportable. Will be struck down. The facts always win out eventually.
As far as your personal attacks. Slimy Clinic Creepers do not affect me.
Juvenile name calling? Trying to convince yourself and others that you aren't afraid of that bad ole palerider?
I guess I was wrong in my assumption that you'd be able to realize that there is a difference between liking something and understanding that there are times when very unfortunate things happen because of a conflicting and important purpose that is necessary.
And yet you continue to use a red herring in a vain attempt to prove that two wrongs somehow make a right. It won't work because it isn't rational. There simply is no relationship between an individual being caught in the fog of war and a woman deciding to deliberately kill another individual. The fact that you can't grasp that really calls your intellect into question.
No... I'm simply pointing out something you said was blatantly & provably wrong.
Perhaps that is what you thought you were doing. The problem is that you can't see past your fallacy. You are still there. Your lips are moving but nothing is coming out.
Not so. It's easy to read the text and understand it's meaning is that life starts at birth.
True, it is easy to read the text and it is easy to read that all men are endowed by their creator (when else but at the time of their conception?) with certain unalienable rights. The fact that you can't even grasp such an easy concept is telling topgun. And then your insistence on trying to equate the rights of citizenship (which are aquired at birth) with the fundamental human rights tells even more. You really go through some interesting mental gymnastics trying to make that poor old dog hunt but it just won't work. The words are very clear.
You were doing pretty good there until you fantasized your last line. That's not in there in any way. The truth is the founders never intended to give rights to the unborn... as at that time birth was the marker for legal rights.
Sorry guy, but that assertion is simply wrong and history bears me out. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn. Stat., Tit. 20, §§ 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. Neither the founders nor the drafters of the 14th amendment apparently had any issue at all with laws protecting the unborn.
The fact is that you just don't know enough to successfully argue this issue topgun. Your knowledge of history, the courts, case law and biology itself is simply lacking. If you had more knowledge, you wouldn't be arguing because you would realize that none of the facts support you. Maybe you would hold the same position, but maybe you wouldn't keep walking into doors.
Clearly you do not understand that it's about what the founders wrote and intended at the time not something that you believe science has proven since. At birth was when individual rights were considered established back in 1776.
The founders were (unlike you) intelligent and articulate men. If they had meant that ones rights began at birth they would have said that all men are born equal. That is not what they said and that is why you can never pass off your snake oil as truth. The only mention of birth was associated with the rights of citizenship and that was written in 1868, not at the time of the founding. Like I said, you just don't know enough about history or, sadly, your own nations founding documents to argue this. The founders never said a thing about being born. They simply said that we are all created equal. That is we come into being as equals.
Well that's about as ridiculous as one can get!
[/B] You put yourself into those positions of your own free will. And no one other person is responsible for you making that choice nor is there any one person legally obligated to donate the internal use of there body so you may have the joy of doing any of those things.
Sorry guy, even when one isn't in a position by his or her own violition, another human being can be required to support them via their own bodily functions. See conjoined twins and that support is for life, not just a mere 9 months. You have lost every single point that you have tried to make top gun because none of them are founded in truth. They are no more than articles of faith to you and they are proved wrong by both the law and science. You are trying to make viability a standard and it simply isn't. Neither the law, science, nor philosophy supports you and simply saying so with no evidence to support the claim is just so much mental masturbation.
