Oh I see. You want to make a claim and have me do your homework. I asked if you could cite these laws you keep referring to. The answer is clearly no.
the answer is clearly that you're not a bright as you think you are. Are you not aware of the statutes against murder in all 50 states? Is murder legal in any of them? Why in the hell would you need a link to a murder statute to know murder is illegal. Your attempted deflection is rejected.
You claim you only care about the letter of the law, regardless of inference, meaning, enforcement, or practicality, yet you won't even cite the very laws you claim technically reject abortion? No one is debating whether murder is bad. The issue here is what the laws you continually reference but don't cite actually say, and how they may be interpreted. Nice straw man attempt though.
Silly and weak attempt at deflection, every opne of the fifty states have laws against murder, in fact they have multiple laws against murder, and if its your contention that any one of those laws exempts abortion of a viable fetus its up to you to prove that. The fact is they don't, and they all boild down to the same thing. Unlawfully and intentionally taking the life of another person. How doesn't really matter.
And we return to your hypocrisy once again. The laws you want ought to be followed to the letter, regardless of how impractical or misinterpreted that letter may be, whereas you brush aside the issues you dislike by insinuating they ought not really be laws anyway. How foolish.
No, what we have here is just you lying. Sorry, but I don't know what else to call it when you lie. Please, enlighten us as to what "letter" of any law you refer to? Do you mean I think murderers should be punished? Well yeah, I do, that would be why we have laws against it. If you're refering to interpreting Roe and Casey to define a viable fetus as a person, then you're way off base, because there is no law to letter. There is only a court finding, which would be an interpretation itself.
The conspiracy is not what established Roe, the conspiracy theories are from one random person on the internet thinking he understands the entire US legal system better than every single court that has ever upheld those decisions. Laughable. Precedence is golden in this country.
did you consult alinsky to come up with this conspiracy garbage? I have not espoused any "conspiracy". The branches of government tug and push at each others powers every day. In this case the SCOTUS managed to grab some. There's no "conspiracy" its the way our government works and why the seperate branches have to jealously gaurd their authority. When you find the part of the constitution empowering the courts to write law where congress has not... let us know.
Your attempted deflection away from the REASONS BEHIND HAVING LAWS is self serving, misguided, and foolish. See how easy it is to provide unsupported adjectives?
BWAHAHAHAHAHHA... skin a little thin? Don't like it when I throw your crap back at you. Too bad.
As I mentioned in my previous post and you promptly ignored it, ALL laws should stem from the scientific/moral/ethical issue. Or do you believe people should follow unethical/immoral laws simply because they are laws? Perhaps we can return to the salem witch trials?
It matters not a whit. What the law is, is what is written, why its written is irrelevant to its application. Courts do not rule on perceptions or intentions, they rule on written laws.
Do we really need to review all of the periods in history were genocide and pillaging ran rampant because people will blindly following laws? Or maybe you think we should return to times where laws stated we did not have freedom of speech or religion? Hopefully we have grown a bit more civilized since those times, and can now identify that laws need to be based on the scientific/ethical/moral reasoning, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
your a riot. pillaging and genocide are the result of lawlessness. Honestly dude, are you drinking? Laws did not give us freedom of speech, you were born with it. And again, you can base the law on anything you wish, once iots written, its whats written that is the law.
So why go off on tangents regarding cryopreservation of implanted embryos? What's your overall point at all? The large majority of states acknowledge and accept the viability barrier, with a small minority of areas performing abortions later.
That is just false. Most states bar a specific procedure which would be used after about 8 months, fetus' are viable LONG BEFORE that, and they are aborted every day and in every state.
Go off on a tangent? I mentioned once in an aside and you ran with it.
Ah, the vague "I already did it and won't even post a link of where I did it" tactic. Which means you can't. Good job.
No, just means I'm not gonna answer the same question from you over and over again because your too dense to get it the first time. You asked the same damned question three times and I answered it every fucking time. have you answered mine yet? No, you've just ignored them.
DNA does in fact differentiate them as human, much like cells from your pancreas, or cancer, or a deceased person. Clearly the latter three are not living human BEINGS though they contain human DNA. Similarly, defining a human being as a "member" of our species only pushes back the question. So again I ask: what comprises the human BEING? Or do you think the only necessity is species DNA?
a pancreas is not a human being and is not a "life". It is an organ. the stupid cell argument is a loser and you know it. A human embryo fits the biological definition of life (that thing a person cannot be deprived of, but a pancreas can) and it is a unique individual in the species.
Hold on a minute. You did not give the biological definition. You gave the lay definition. And you did not define human being, you defined the vaguest form of "life" and then refused to enter an ethical discussion on the differences.
false. I answered both, and I've commented alot on the PHILISOPHICAL definition... there is no "ethical" one.
It's great that you can differentiate that pancreatic tissue is not a human being, but simply saying "that's loser" is an unsupported and useless argument. But the thing is, you CAN'T tell me WHY it's "loser" and yet you think you have a valid argument. Boo hoo you.
I didn't simply say "that's a loser", i went on to explain why, and once again you are either incapable of understanding or simply refuse to acknowledge it.... it would have to do with that whole "unique individual of the genus homo sapiens sapiens" thing. Not to worry... I'm sure you'll ignore it again. Seems to be what you do when you can't argue a point.