He didnt say it did
But it does refute your statement that its separate from the woman.
Whether it is lawful or not is determined by the justification under law of the taking of that life.
I shoot someone to rob them, no justification under the law.
I shoot someone robbing me at knife point, completely justified under the law.
The first is a murder, the second is a justifiable homicide as determined by law.
It is in the intended habitat for that stage of life. As I said, earlier choices between two people created the life.
Ok then i ask again, why do you keep bringing up the scientific definition of life?
It is separate and apart. The umbilicus attaches to the uterine wall, it’s natural habitat.
Again, try following the conversation, I’m not going to rehash it for you.
And under the law, as determined by law, abortion is currently legal.
Where have I said otherwise exactly? Can you provide a quote?
I am. You havent explained why a fetus being labelled scientifically human is relevant. Feel free to link to the post that i missed.
Where did I say you said otherwise? I was simply making a point that “as determined by law” doesnt really mean anything in this debate. This is a philosophical debate. Not a matter of fact debate.
It’s been explained in great detail, if you haven’t got it yet I can’t help you any further.
Ok. I didnt see the explanation so my conclusion is that you havent explained it.
And the woman gets to choose if she wants to keep it there.
So you continue to show that you want to not only control women’s bodies, but you want to control when and why people have sex…based on YOUR beliefs.
Which, again, goes back to the woman’s choice…doesn’t it?
Under U.S. law, yes. But we are not discussing whether or not there is a law. We are discussing whether it is right, morally, to take an innocent life.
Nothing in the Constitution justifies the government controlling a woman’s body.
I appreciate you sharing your opinion.