It means nothing. It is nothing more than more unsupported claims. I looked closely for some supporting evidence and found none.
And still I see nothing refuting them. You have yet to prove that unborns are something other than human beings. You clearly can't prove that human beings have no right to live, and you have offered no evidence to support a claim that the right to live is less fundamental than any other right. What exactly do you believe you have proven?
I don't know where you get this "fall back position" idea from. My argument has remained the same for a very long time. The proof that I used to support each point still stands unchallenged. Lets go through it again slowly.
1. Unborns are human beings.
The science has been presented and remains unchallenged. Neither you, nor any other pro choicer has provided even a whit of credible evidence that suggests that unborns are something other than human beings.
2. Human beings have a right to live.
Clearly stated in the 5th and 14th amendment. No person (see the legal dictionary) may be denied that right without due process.
3. The right to live takes precedence over all other rights so long as you are not an imminent threat to someone else's life.
Again, you have provided nothing that challenges that.
We don't become something else when we die. We are what we were except we are dead.
Here, from the U.S. Code Title 10, subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 75, Subchapter I:
"Authority.--Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense, the Armed Forces Medical Examiner may conduct a forensic
pathology investigation to determine the cause or manner of death of a
deceased person if such an investigation is determined to be justified
under circumstances described in subsection (b). "
http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=62281031510+24+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve
There are numerous similar references throughout both the US Code and federal, state and local laws as well. Feel free to argue, but that argument, like the rest is meaningless. Dead human beings are considered to be dead persons. Further, if you refer to THE legal dictionary for the legal defintion of the word decedent, you will find that it means "the person who has died, sometimes referred to as the "deceased." and in THE legal dictionary, deceased means the person who has died, as used in the handling of his/her estate, probate of will and other proceedings after death, or in reference to the victim of a homicide (as: "The deceased had been shot three times.") In probate law the more genteel word is the "decedent."
Do you believe that you are the first one to attempt to go there? Every part of my argument has been thoroughly researched and I make no claims that I can not support. Now if you believe that because the dead are in fact human beings and are considered by the law to be persons that somehow the due process clauses are rendered null and void in both the 5th and 14th amendments of the Constitution, by all means, lets see some case law to prove it. That, I would be very interested in seeing. The very fact of probate law should have been enough to prevent you from attempting that silly argument. The rights of the dead continue on after they are dead and it stands to reason that the law must recognize them as persons if they can continue to exercise the rights of persons after their deaths.
So I am still waiting for you to offer up credible evidence to disprove any point of my argument.
