Originally Posted by Loa

Should keep everyone happy:

Let's accept the argument that a lump of cells is actually a living human being, which happens to have no solid proof either way, as such being highly subjective, and...

Originally Posted by Loa

Make inhabiting a woman's womb without permission an offense punishable by death.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Your suggestion is no good because it is based on a logical fallacy. You are begging the question and simply assuming that unborns are not living human beings. I say that unborns are living human beings from conception and can prove it.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, )

"Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human being from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."E. Bleschmidt, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company), 2-18.

Originally Posted by Towelie

None of these are law books. None are any form of legal precedent. You've proved nothing except for the fact that people exist who agree with you. Plenty of others don't.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Can you or can you not find within the constitution the right for one human being to kill another human being without legal consequence for any or no reason?

Originally Posted by Towelie

Can you or can you not find within the constitution anything that says a woman doesn't have the right to make her own medical decisions? Or that a woman's body is the property of the courts? I'll wait.

Originally Posted by Towelie

A fetus isn't a person, therefore your whole premise is bunk. Show me legal precedent (sans laws in which abortion is specifically excluded from consideration) that says an 8-week-old blob of non-sentient matter is actually an infant. I'll wait.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Of course. It is what this whole dispute is about.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Killing another human being is not a medical decision.

Originally Posted by Towelie

A fetus isn't yet a person; abortion is indeed a medical decision. Roe v Wade covers all that. No legislation since (where abortion is applicable) has contradicted that assertion. Give it up.

Originally Posted by Towelie

Yes, by way of a piece of lousy legislation that specifically excludes abortion.

Originally Posted by Towelie

Would you like me to provide the definition of "exclude?"

Originally Posted by PaleRider

A fetus is a human being. In the eyes of the law, all human beings are persons. the eyes of the law are blind bitch The roe court knew this and that is why they made the incorrect assumption that unborns were "potential" human beings even though nothing credible was entered into evidence to suggest that this was so. of course nothing credible was entered into evidence against it either


Yeah, you keep saying this. I asked you to explain how one can be both a human and a non human at the same time. How can one be both a person and a non person at the same time. You like to talk but you don't seem to be able to answer the questions your talk brings up. Can you answer the question or will you continue to yammer like a monkey in a tree?

Your defense of your postion brings up questions. If you can't answer them, then your defense is flawed and must fail. Can you or can you not rationally answer the question? Have you ever done anything rational hypocrite



Here is another question that your defense brings up and goes to the heart of the law in question. How can you square exclusion with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment? Equality and exclusion are (for lack of better words) mutually exclusive. See reality isn't made up of laws and amendments, many have been repealed, why ya dumb bitch? because laws and amendments are not absolute standards of what is right and wrong

You bring up the questions and should be able to answer them if your defense is rational and valid.

Originally Posted by Carson

and yet you don't ya fucking hypocrite