You really are too stupid for words, as I've stated before.<quoted text>
Exactly. Its over
When she changed her tune from "roe defined viability AS able to live albeit with assistance" to " uh well that's obviously the definition they USED." then started denying they claimed Roe defined viability AT ALL and claimed that doctors defined it cuz it was already defined by doctors, she was admitting she was wrong in her own warped little way.
It's over. We win. FACTS MATTER.
""roe defined viability AS able to live albeit with assistance" to ""
We claimed RvW "defined viability" [as pertaining to their decision about abortion] as being THE definition which included "albeit with artificial aid", bonehead. That never changed. We never said the judges created the definition, or that they didn't use a medical definition, or that they didn't use a definition at all.
a. To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example)."
Which RvW did. They stated the precise meaning of the word viability that pertained to their decision about viability.
The only ones wrong are you idiots who thought for one second that we were claiming RvW defined it, like a dictionary would have "defined" it. No, fool, we meant they clearly stated what [they meant] by "viability", which was the definition they USED in their decision that included "albeit with artifical aid".
The more you try to claim something we didn't do, the more irrational and desperate you look. You're obviously trying to distance yourself from the fact that YOUR claim was that viability with regard to a fetus means [born and surviving [without] medical assistance], which we proved wrong 100 times over. Also you made a claim as though that the meaning of viability,[which included albeit with artificial aid] wasn't made clear in RvW, when it was.
Just because the lightbulb went on over YOUR head when we said certain things, doesn't mean those same things haven't been said by us 100 times over and the lightbulb over your head didn't go on.