The very fact that you said that your feelings run along the line of the supreme court's written decision. Clearly, that decision is based on the assumption that unborns are not human beings but only potential human beings. Any position based on that assumption, in the face of modern scientific knowledge and legal precedent clearly indicates a fundamental ignorance, or basic misunderstanding of the written opinion. Unless, of course, you can provide some credible materials that state explicitly that unborns are only potetial human beings. Can you do that?
Sorry, but it is not an opinion. It is an uncontested scientific fact that unborns at any stage of development are living human beings. To suggest that it is acceptable to kill one but not the other is not a rational argument unless you can demonstrate in some real way that there is more difference than simply the level of maturity. Can you do that?
I cherry pick nothing and wholeheartedly and most earnestly invite and encourage you to provide some credible scientific material that states that unborns, at any stage of development are not living human beings. My arguments are neither emotional, nor moral, nor religious. I operate in the realm of reality and that which I can prove. The fact that you find it necessary to make the claim that my arguments are religious, moral, or emotional when you would find it impossible to provide an example of such, again, brings the inherent weakness of your argument into high relief.
If you can't defend your position, or find that attempting to describe the flawed logic by which you have arrived at your position to embarassing to post on a public board, then simply say that you are unable to defend your position and let it go at that. The blatant dodge that you are presently engaging in is far more embarassing to you than simply being honest and stating that your position is an emotional one and you can't rationally defend it.
