Really. The key word is individuals. Introduction of war and war related issues into a discussion on abortion is a logical fallacy known as a red herring. Sorry, but you lose again. But what else is new? If you had a rational argument in support of your position, you would have made it already.
If you had done your research, you would know that was patently untrue. Of course it is soon to change. For the past 36 years, the argument has revolved around a woman's theoretical right to terminate a potential human being. No court has stated that a woman has the right to kill another human being. Cases are on the way that will force the court to consider what is being terminated rather than the theoretical right to termiate it and Justice Blackmun already predicted the outcome in the original roe decision. Do you need to see it again?
Sorry, but I won't indulge you in your logical fallacies. Red herrings are not welcome here. If you can't argue your case on the face of the facts, then you can't argue your case.
None the less; they do represent legal precedent for allowing one human being to use another's bodily resources. Take a look at roe if you want to see "completely different things" being used to justify their decision. Hell, they reference the Bible for a supreme court decision.
Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. If a pair of twins are sharing a heart for example, DNA tests would determine that it belongs to the body of one, but not the other. They are separate individuals even though they are connected and sharing resources.
Further, there is ample legal precedent to prove that the shared organ is not the property of each. Numerous separations have been performed in cases where both twins would die because an organ was unable to support both. In all cases, it was clear that the organ in question belonged to one or the other and the separation was done with the aim of saving the twin whose body the organ belonged to.
This, like so much of your argument is simply something that you have made up. You are arguing what you wish, rather than what is.
You are describiing a clash of rights. Whenever a clash of rights exists between two individuals, the rights of the one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other. There is no more fundamental right than the right to live. Face it top gun, when the facts come to bear, your argument fails every time.
I have stated my case and proved them wrong. Thus far, you have not gone an inch towards justifying their decision. They made the decision based entirely on an assumption that unborns were not human beings. Science has proven their assmption wrong and in his majority decision, Justice Blackmun acknowledged that should that assumption be proven wrong, that roe would collapse as the child's life would be specifically protected by the 14th amendment without regard to any right that the woman may claim. It is right there in the decision. Perhaps it is time you stopped fantasizing and face the facts.
I have proven my case based on the biological facts, the Constitution, the law, and legal precedent. Thus far you have done no more than parrot "its legal, its legal'.
Is that really the best you can do? You sound like mare fabricating fantasies to console herself of the fact that she has no rational argument. She likes to pretend that every argument she posts doesn't fall before the facts too.
