the one and only point I ever make is this, is the embroy alive? if it is alive, then someone is killing it to end it's life. It therefore is life. It's really simple, not sure why the supreme court had a problem with life. it grows because it is alive. It wouldn't if it was dead. and what is a pregnancy then?What other human beings can get the killer a MURDER CHARGE, homey?
None. Right?
Other than born human beings and human fetuses? No, no others can get you a murder charge, since the only other humans would be dead ones.
Why don't you just get to the gotcha point you think you are making?
There is no gotcha point.
You are simply helping me to educate others.
Could you explain what the physiological difference is between a human being / person / child who is in the fetal stage of their life and a human fetus?
That would be interesting.
OMG, you are back to this again? I've never claimed a difference between a human fetus and a human being in the fetal stage of development, as those are simply two ways to say the same thing. I have said this to you before, when you made the same basic statement. In fact, I cannot recall a single poster claiming that a human fetus is different from a human being in the fetal stage of development.
You are not educating anyone, except perhaps in your ability to belabor a meaningless point.
Unfortunately there are still a significant number of people (a majority) on your side if the debate who still deny what you just said. . . That a human fetus is in fact "a human being." A child.
So I thank you for helping me educate those who still try to maintain that denial.
Was the only question the court asked whether a fetus is alive? Did it ask that question at all? Many things are alive, but killing them does not necessarily make a crime. If it did, gardeners would go to jail en mass.
No, the important question was whether or not a fetus constitutes a person for the purposes of constitutional protections.