For the record, don't think I didn't notice your little sleight of hand, Katie.<quoted text>
Did you or did you not try to claim "PC logic" invalid by stating viability would have no bearing in abortion?
You 1st claimed I said viabilty "[had no] bearing on abortion", which was a lie.
Now you're trying to backpedal from your lie by asking a question. Don't think that went unnoticed.
You're now trying to change your lie by [asking] if I said "viability [would have] no bearing on abortion..." [if the claims by Chicky and you about viability were valid], by prefacing it with "did you or did you not say...", as though you understood all along what I posted.
You're so full of shit and so decpetive in discussion, but intelligent people are onto your little games.
You initially claimed that [I stated] "viability [had] no bearing on abortion". That's a lie.
IF the stupidity Chicky claims (and you support) about "viability"; meaning [born and surviving [without] artifical aide] were correct, it [would not] have any bearing on abortion.
That's not my saying viability [had no] bearing on abortion.
That's stating yours and Chicky's sesnelessness of what viability supposedly means [with regard to] the abortion issue, is utter nonsense. BECAUSE if viability meant [born and living without artifical aide], there'd be no need to discuss abortion at all. The child would already be born for, according to you pea brains, the meaning of viability to be valid.