Ah, I understand your argument now:
I agree with the USSC.
The USSC is wrong (according to you).
Therefore I don't understand the USSC.
Sorry, but I still agree with decision of the USSC, and I still understand their decision concerning "potential human life". Specious legal maneuverings from fundamentalists origins do not influence my thinking. If there were a case where someone was convicted of murdering an unborn in the first months of pregnancy, I would be interested in seeing the arguments.
I would amend that to late term unborns are living human beings, and very early unborns have an unfulfilled potentiality of human life. That's how the USSC considered it.
Let me say it again. I came on this board to refute a poor scientific argument. The OP misused a source and thus carried out a "proof" that was absurd. I am not embarrassed by that. If you are, that's your problem. My stance is that nobody has "proved" that an early stage abortion should be considered murder. If you say it has been "proved" then I consider it an opinion. I certainly don't need to "prove" that it is not murder. The USSC has made a decision. I think it was the right one. I don't need to worry about it. I can see that you still do.
Here is a compromise for people that want to call abortion murder. Let's change the definition: Homicide is the killing of a human older than 3 months from conception. That way you can still abide by your arguments, and there won't be 40 million women in jail. The definition of homicide needs a bit of polishing up to fit the USSC definition, but it's a start.
