And you would find nothing in the books stating that those who killed their slaves had comitted murder either. Do you deny that those who killed slaves were killing human beings whether the law recognized it or not?
Listen to what? You trying to rationalize a logial fallacy? You did nothing to prove the information he provided wrong. You merely complained about the source. That is a logical fallacy wether you recognize it or not.
No it isn't. If it were, then you would recognize that in the eyes of the law, human being and person are interchangable terms and lacking any evidence from you that unborns are something other than living human beings, if your opinion were firmly grounded in the law, you would be asking why there is a class of human beings in the US who are being denied their most basic human rights.
No part of your opinion is grounded in the law. Your opinion is based on a court decision. A decision that you clearly are completely unable to ratioally defend. You are no more than a parrot on a stick repeating "its legal" ad nauseum.
Roe v wade stands as a court decision, not the law. Further, roe v wade acknowledges a woman's right to terminate a potential human life. Do feel free to provide some credible evidence that states that unborns are potential human lives. Unborn human beings are not even mentioned in roe.
Are you denying that the court made its decision based on an assumtion that unborns are not living human beings? If that is the case, how about you reference the part of the decision that acknowledges that unborns are living human beings but a woman has the right to kill one anyway.
And you better do a gut check. It is me who is stating fact after fact after fact and referencing them to credible sources. It is you who is mewling your uneducated, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated opinion as if it amounted to a rational argument.
I am over 60 as if that had any bearing on the discussion. Hitler declared that a particular group of human beings were in reality, not human beings at all and as such, had no human rights at all in order to fulfill a pre-existing agenda. Our supreme court has done the same thing two times now. Both times in order to fill a pre-existing agenda. How exactly do you believe that the two are not morally equivalent in their actions. Of course, hitler only succeeded in killing 6 million before he was stopped while our court has the blood of over 40 million and still counting dripping from their hands.
Both are killing for reasons that amount to no more than convenience. Do feel free to describe a difference.
And it isn't the woman's body that is at issue here. There is a second body that you, and those like you discount entirely from the equation.
Of course you have. Did you not say that you find nothing reprehensible about killing a human being during the first trimester?
The fact that is alive and continues to live is evidence of having an interest in continuing to live.
