As I said, I can't explain why it has taken so long for the legal eagles to see the key to overturning roe. It has been there since day one. Maybe they had to wait until a body of legal precedent existed that actually answered the question of the personhood of the unborn. I couldn't say. That, however, isn't the issue. The issue now is that they have seen it and the issue is being pressed and the fact is, top gun, there is no longer a defense for the pro choice position. If there were, it could be found out on the internet and everyone on the pro choice side would be using it.
Your argument, and the argument of every pro choicer is based on the same flawed assumption that roe was decided on and there are just no facts that support that assumption that unborns are something other than living human beings.
Maybe you missed, or simply ignored the fact that recently, the South Dakota Supreme Court upheld a law requiring that abortion providers inform women seeking abortion that they were, in fact, considering killig a living human being. Numerous other states are pushing the same laws. Planned parenthood is appealing them as quickly as they can. Are you able to see where this is going? Eventually, the Supreme Court is going to have to make a ruling not on a woman's theoretical right to kill an unborn, but what an unborn actually is. The perponderance of the evidence is so great that even a court with a pro choice agenda won't be able to deny the facts.
Upon the Supreme Court upholding a states requirement that abortion providers inform women that abortion kills a living human being, the clock begins ticking in earnest for roe because at that point, even the Supreme Court has held that unborns are living human beings and therefore, in the eyes of the law, persons.
But hey, you keep on believing.
By the way, the South Dakota Supreme Court upheld the law based on the very sort of evidence that I have been providing all along. WHen the facts are laid out, they simply can not be denied. Denied by a rational person anyway, and to the best of my knowledge, no one is accusing you of being rational.
Maybe you should come to the realization that red herrings don't constitute actual argument. What I do, or don't do for children (which you haven't the faintest idea one way or another) is irrelavent to the topic of abortion. If that sort of whining logical fallacy is the best you can do, why evern bother.
