Actually, the surpreme court could get involved following the same principle that it go involved in deciding civil rights despite what the states wanted.

RvW, much like the recent CSSC decision on gay marriage is not wrong on what they ruled, but for WHY the ruled.

Is this really the best you can do? Denying a woman the "right" to kill her child no more enslaves her than denying you the right to kill your neighbor for letting his dog take a dump in your roses every day.

As to those embryo's presently in stasis, I believe that they should be put up for adoption.

Since you must be a born human being in order to be claimed as a dependent, your "plan" shows that your planning skills are no better than your debate skills.

And a human being is what a human being is regardless of what the law says. Do feel free to provide some evidence that you can physically change one thing to another thing by simply calling it a different thing. I would be interested in such knowledge as I have several pounds of lead that I would like to change to gold.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Well, the way I see it, 400 million women at any point in time, and something like a billion women agree with me that an embryo isn't a human being, because collectively they would be engaging in the premeditated murder of about a billion human beings each years if the took your point of view that an embryo is a human being.

If you had cited the website you are plagiarizing, Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform | Fetal Development I would have come up with this argument much sooner.

You see things the way you do because you are, by definition, a flat earther. Following your logic, if a sufficient number of people said that the sun now revolves around the earth, you would necessarily go along without regard to what the science said. You clearly have no basis for your position other than "they believe it too". That is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to common practice, where X is a common action. Therefore X is correct / moral / justified / reasonable, etc. The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

You are just one more pro choicer who has based your position on one or more logical fallacies. I don't blame you because it would be very difficult to effectively argue your position if you argued from a position of fact.


I have never been to that site. The more likely senario is that they got the bibliographical references from me since I have been using some of them for nearly a decade. I got them the old fashioned way, I visited medical school libraries and read. By the way, one can't plagarize bibliographical references any more than one can engage in an ad hominem attack if one is also addressing his opponent's arguments.

And what argument did you come up with, a statement that you, like so many other pro choicers are flat earthers and perfectly willing to ignore science in favor of the stories you tell yourself?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

fucking stupid liberal arguments.

__________________

GOD BLESS AMERICA

So, you are now claiming that you authored the website that you have never visited and that has a copyright on the content that doesn't mention you?

I found it by input some of the text you posted into google and that was the first place that popped up. I did nothing to create the content of the website.

Perhaps you need to check why others are plagerizing you without giving you credit for your work? Otherwise, I think its safe to assume that you have copied the work of someone who claims the copyright on it.

Well, the only way you can win the argument is to say that "science" is the law, and not the rule of law founded in the US Constitution.

And by law, the length of a year is 365 days, except every fourth year when it is 366 days, except every 100 years when its 365 days, except every 4000 years when its 366 days, maybe.

Science puts the length of a year at 365.256 363 051 days.

How many days do you think are in a year? When you tell your wife that she is wrong to use a calendar with either 365 or 366 days, what is her reaction?

So, I will be happy to be one in favor of choice, and I will resist your efforts to take away my choice and dictate what I must believe.

I have yet to see an petri dish give birth to a infant boy or girl so I just can't see an embryo in a petri dish as a human being. You claim that an embryo in a petri dish will grow up to be an adult unless some kills it, so I await you showing me a petri dish carry to term and deliver the infant that has grown into the adult. My criteria for scientific claims is seeking them actually take place.

If it is unconstitutional, why is it in our Constitution?

It's not, that is the point. Find me anything that supports the USSC position as it was argued in the Constitution.

All I know is that it legal for women to get abortions. If abortions were unconstitutional, they would be illegal. But, as you know by now, I don't care one way or the other about abortion. 1) It ain't my business, and 2) I'm not ready to turn 50% of American women into felons.