Master of the obvious. We know.( Not in all states, by the way )<quoted text>
A woman getting an abortion pre-1973 is breaking the law.
Again.....obvious.A woman protesting against the law is not breaking the law. She is exercising her right to work to change an existing law.
Not a thing. Except for one minor thing. None of this has anything to do with my original point, which was....The law was in fact changed, by SCOTUS. What about this don't you get?
You said you defended a woman's freedom to choose WITHIN THE LAW. Then you went on to question how anyone could have an argument with such a laudable creed. Yet the fact is you would have NOT professed to live by such a laudable creed pre-1973. In fact, "I" could have said that I lived by such a creed prior to 1973....and you would have had a major argument with it. THAT was the point.
You had two chances to answer and you failed. You no longer have to.........I answered for you.
You implied it did not meet some criteria for being considered to be alive. Then went on to say that it did not meet the definition of "life".....which brings us back to the original point. The fetus is no doubt a live and developing human. It is the PC that have established the subjectively chosen point at which that life is worth anything or is worthy of protection. How sanctimoniously and self righteously in violation of the fundamental right to life can you be that you would consider the right to privacy as the basis for dictating when a human life should be worthy of protection ?I never said a fetus is not alive,
The civil rights of the born are already restricted in cases where innocent human life is at stake.or a developing human. A z/e/f does not have rights. A woman has rights. A born baby has rights.
To give the z/e/f rights would then revoke rights from women. A woman is a born human being, a z/e/f is not born yet.