Hardly.
I responded to your post the way it was written.
Now you're changing the meaning of what you wrote.
You do, however, have a tendency toward being obtuse.
The onus of proving the existence of the right to life in this thread is not on the pro-life and anti-abortion contigents.
The existence of the right to life is not at question in this thread.
There is no "inconsistency" in the presentation of the right to life as a premise in this thread.
There is no debatable "meaning" of the right to life at issue in this thread.
In fact, it's really a no-brainer even in the Realities of Rights thread.
You may obfuscate the matter by denying the right to life to some, but your denial is really irrelevant to the reality of the simple, straight forward nature of the right to life, that it applies to everyone, and that it cannot rightly be revoked etc. for matters other than in sad restrospect and with appeal to immediate life or death self-defense.
The meaning of the right to life is obvious and thus not at issue in this thread.
If you have a "meaning" issue with the right to life, that is more appropriately taken up in the Realities of Rights thread.
Deal with it there ... then come back to here.
It does not matter if some on either side may advocate situational violation of the right to life. An advocation of violation does not rationally detract from the simple, straightforward meaning of the right to life itself.
What matters is that the right to life exists, that it applies to all in the manner I have stated, and that the newly conceived is a person who is alive.
If you still have a "meaning" problem with the right to life, hash it out in the Realities of Rights thread.
And here you go -- your "a few brainless cells" denigration indicates unconjecturably that you've yet to accept the scientific declaration that a conception is a living human being, a person, from that moment on.
So, since you really have a problem with the science of the matter, post an accurate, in-context scientific refutation of the opening post.
But don't rationalize and hide behind sophistry of "the debatable 'meaning' of the right to life" when that's simply not at issue as well as not your foundational issue, but is merely your excusive digressive diversion for being unable to refute the topically relevant science.
Irrelevant.
Are you so codependent that whatever everyone else erronoeously might say makes it impossible for you to hold an accurate and true relevant thought on the matter in your head?!
It doesn't matter how people might differ on the matter -- you should be able to think accurately regardless of the mistakes of others, whether they be in your contigent or your adversary's.
Go to the Realities of Rights thread and learn all about human rights and why the simple, straightforward right to life applies to all as I've so stated, regardless of your projected "hugely hypocritical" excuse.
If you're confused, get yourself straightened out on the matter, and then you will be more likely able to convince others.
Now, enough digression.
