Sorry topgun. I don't squirm. There is no need. I can provide credible material to support each and every part of my argument while to date, you have provided nothing that supports yours. I am perfectly comfortable with my position because it is fully supported. Your fantasy that I am squirming is nothing more and nothing less than your own disccomfort with the fact that you simply can't support your arguments. Were we in a court of law, you would be laughed out for lack of evidene and your worthyness at the bar would be in serious question.
And what you pointed out was nothing but a logical fallacy. A red herring proves nothing and your red herring seems to be trynig to prove that two wrongs make a right. Logical fallacy heaped upon logical fallacy.
Lost years ago? The real fight hasn't even started. To date, the argument has revolved around a woman's theoretical right. The real fight begins when attention turns to what is being terminated.
Tell me topgun, what credible evidence do you suppose that the pro choice side can present that proves that unborns are something other than living human beings? What do you suppose thier argument will consist of. What I have presented to prove that unborns are living human beings is just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine day after day after day of the top scientists in their fields testifying that unborns are living human beings and providing ream upon ream of research to prove it.
Your whole argument rests on a faulty assumption made by judges with an agenda that unborns were not human beings. Neither you, nor anyone on the pro choice side can offer up anything at all to support that faulty assumption.
Justice Blackmun saw the handwriting on the wall 36 years ago when he wrote: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
At that time, there was no case that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment and our scientific knowledge with regard to developmental biology was quite small and very unclear when compared to what we know today.
Today, a large body of case law can be sited that holds that unborns are persons within the meaning of the 14th amendment. People are in prison having been charged separately and specifically for killing unborns and one can not even be charged, much less tried and convicted in this country for any sort of criminal homicide unless one has, in fact, killed a person. Thirty four states have legislated laws that recognize unborns as human beings and federal law recognizes unborns at any stage of development as living human beings.
What is your argument against the case law, the state and federal laws and sciene topgun? "Its legal?" Good luck with that.
You seem to be under the impression that the president, or congress, or the senate can reverse a supreme court decision. You should check the constitution.
Unlike you, I don't need anything new. My argument remains unscathed. It is fully supported by both science and the law. It is you and yours who keep trying something new.
And I suppose Copernicus and Galileo amused the church for a time as well. Be amused. As I said, it will make your outrage at being wrong all the sweeter for me.
My arguments are fully supported by science and the law. I don't need to guess. Yours are supported by exactly squat. Who is really guessing?
There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. If you knew the first thing about developmental biology, you would know that the term fertilized egg is one that in common usage lets people who really don't know jack about biology pretend that they do. We have known for quite some time that there is no such thing as a fertilized egg. We know beyond conjeture that upon the completion of fertilization, a new human being exists.
That being said, I have made no analogy between women and fictitious creatures like fertilized eggs. Have you ever read legal arguments? In a case about 9 years ago over the separation of conjoined twins, the judges themselves compared the pair of twins to men jumping out of an airplane, one with a good chute and one without and the one without grabbing onto the leg of the one with the chute causing both to fall at a deadly speed. The argument was whether the one with the chute had the right to shake the other off. What could possibly be more different from conjoined twins than men jumping from a plane.
In all instances we are talking about a clash of rights between individuals and in all circumstances, the right of the one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other.
So name a few. Name a right that one human could invoke that would trump the right of another human being to live other than the right to self defense if the one is an imminent threat to the life of the other. If there are "a hundred" other things, you really shouldn't have any problem listing off a few. Lets hear them.
Your pity is misplaced. It is really self pity projected onto me. I can support my argument while you have nothing but your own uneducated, uncorroborated, unsupported opinion.
Of course you can provide some credible evidence to support your claiim that the mother and child are not separate individuals? Of course you can't because it is settled science. Insane is attempting to refute hard science with an uneducated opinion.
Every day science provides more facts to prove me right. Every day the body of legal precedent establishing, beyond question, the personhood of the unborn. Every day my case gets stronger while yours grows more mewlingly weak.
It is you who is making the enotional argument, not me,
Check your history, time always favors the side who has the facts on their side.
