Do feel free to bring some textbooks written by female's that show a different perspective if you like.

You are making a lot of claims but substantiating none of them. Excuse me if I don't take them seriously.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Most research says that none of us become self aware until between 12 and 18 months. Are you saying that children between birth and whenever they become self aware are also not persons? Your argument, like so many attempts to philosophize away the humanity of a human bieng falls apart under even the most meager scrutiny.

Sorry, but I am not wrong. If a judge, any judge, suggested that Black's was deficient, can you imagine the number of appeals that would spring up if Black's were used in any manner in the case? Even the Supreme Court wouldn't suggest such a thing.

Sorry, but one doesn't have to be self conscious to be a human being. Again, children born without brains are considered human beings by the law. Again, your argument fails under even slight scrutiny.

Now you are bringing aliens into the discussion? Are you kidding? Let me know when they get here.


Because the offspring of two human beings can be nothing else. Each individual of the species homo sapiens sapiens is a human being without regard to how old or mature they are. If you dispute this, I wholeheartedly encourage you to bring some credible science to support your claim. If you can't, then I am afraid that your flat earth, dogmatic arguments simply don't hold up.

All human beings are persons. Personhood is a matter of kind, and not degree. If personhood were a matter of degree, then you could do things that would make you more of a person or less of a person and younger people would be less persons than older persons and older persons would be more persons than younger. Such is not the case. You can do any manner of things to be a better or worse person, but nothing to be more or less of a person.


Actually, I have acknowledged no such thing. Any legal case involves technicalities to a degree, but no valid case rests on a technicality. That is precicely why roe is on such shaky ground. It rests entirely on a technicality. It is based on the assumption that unborns are not human beings.

Actually, it isn't You can make the claim, but you are completely unable to prove it.

As to the science, I encourage you to bring some science here from a pro choice sientist who says that unborns are at some point something other than human beings. We both know that you can't, because even pro choice scientists admit freely that we are human beings at any stage of development. If a bias existed, then there would be credible science stating that we are something other than human beings before we are born.

Again, your argument fails under scrutiny.

There is no need to "have" to go back to the founders. My position is supported by modern science, the constitution, and existing legal precedent. Yours needs a rewrite of the legal dictionary that has been in use by practically every court in the country since the 1890's and, apparently, contact with aliens.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

So was slavery.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Corroboration?

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Slavery was legal, but unconstitutional. I am not making a moral argument, I am making a legal argument.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

/shrug

This has nothing to do with the line of discussion - specifically that some killings are considered acceptable and others are not. You were the one that, in circular fashion, invoked the letter of the law as a defense of the law (executions, war killings, etc), not me. Slavery as a former institution isn't relevant, and it certainly corroborates my point and not yours.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I am afraid that I don't know what you are getting at. Of course slavery has a place in this discussion. It was another case of the government claiming that certain human beings were not human beings so that they could be denied thier most basic human rights.

War and state executions actually do have nothing to do with the discussion. They are state actions as opposed to actions between individuals. The fact that the state can sponsor a war has nothing at all to do with one individual in this country killing another individual for reasons other than self defense.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

My legal arguement is Abortion is murder... Humans dont kill humans for convienence.

I bet if I punch and expecting woman in the stomach and kill the fetus I will be charged with murder and not assult. I guess it would only be murder because she wanted the baby... If she aborted it, its not murder?

So I guess its only ok to kill the baby if the mom wants to?

Sluts who have convenient abortions should be charged with murder.

I would love for some pro choice person to tell me when a fetus is a baby... IMO I dont think they really give a shit. I think they think the "choice" and the woman making the "choice" is more important then the baby.

What if the father wants the baby and the mother doesnt? "tough luck"?

Remember it takes two to tango.. A baby isnt 95% mom and 5% dad.

__________________
America’s political correctness is a disease that will bring down our once fine nation.

My bros G/F sister has had 5 abortions and I act like she doesnt even exist when shes around because I think shes a murderer and should be in prison. You dont kill babies because you want to party and make money from stripping..... Thats so wrong and immoral that I dont even consider her as a person. The bitch is evil and I wont even look at her. Oh yea and shes only like 23 and 5 abortions. This bitch needs to be fixed like a bitch dog to prevent anymore convenient murders.

__________________
America’s political correctness is a disease that will bring down our once fine nation.

Unfortunately, I didn't make my definition up from whole cloth. And tell me where does it say yours is supported by both the law and hard science? Hard scince perhaps, but so is mine. Claiming yours is supported by the law is a lie because there is no real legal definition of what a human actually is.

I find it odd that in order to make an argument, you must begin by trying to single out your definition as the only valid definition. What does that say about your argument?

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

As for an actual definition of what a human actually is you should do a bit of research. I googled it and got a ton of results. One such was a wikipedia article on humans.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

/shrug, again.

I'm not really sufficiently interested in you dressing up your personal, subjective opinions as factual arguments to indulge a discussion where you move the goalposts at will. To be honest, I don't really care about abortion or Roe v Wade one way or another, as its an irrelevant distraction from issues that matter, a categorical matter of ethical opinion, and harbors an inevitable outcome. People who can afford abortions will have them, regardless of any jockeying over partial-birth this or second-term that. Some people will think it immoral and try to stop it, some people won't and will try to keep it. In the end, it will happen no matter what and in the end, it will always be a matter of subjective ethics.

I don't mind having a discussion where you and I talk about our favorite colors, but when you try to prove, legally, and scientifically, that red is the best color, after a few chuckles, my interest wanes, and I opt to move on.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

That makes as much sense as a "legal argument" that people can be tried twice for the same crime. However you, me, or anyone else feels about it, abortions are not, ipso facto, murder until or unless the law is changed to make them such.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Arguing, one way or another that "science" supports an ethical proposition, is a gross misappropriation of what scientific inquiry actually is. "Science" doesn't support any morals or ethics one way or another.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson