I gave you what the founders said, not an interpretation of what they said. Throughout the federalist papers, they describe the government they were instituting as a representative republic. Interpret it how you will, but any interpretation other than representative republic is wrong.
I am sure that is what you think. The fact is that I correct you when you are wrong. If you were right, or using apt analogies, I would not be correcting you.
I got your point and yet again, it was wrong.
There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. The term is outdated. Modern technology has rendered it obsolete. When fertilization is complete, a new human being exists, not a fertilized egg.
The reference I gave you is from an actual medical school textbook. Note the date. Your infomation has been outdated since at least 1996.
And you would be wrong forever. Every textbook on embryology and human developmental biology states quite clearly that when fertilization is complete, a zygote exists, not a fertilized egg. A zygote is a human being. The term fertilized egg is used by people who don't grasp the biology so that they can feel like they do.
Human beings, not microscopic life. Why can't you say what it is rather than hiding behind the language?
If roe is overturned, it will be because personhood has been established for the unborn. I don't often go into this but if personhood is established and roe is overturned for that reason, it will not be possible for any state to allow abortion either. Justice blackmund, in the roe decision, admitted that if personhood is established for the unborn, that the framework of roe will fail because the unborn will be entitled to 14th amendment protection. No state can allow women to simply kill human beings that have the protection of the 14th amendment.
If personhood is established and with it, 14th amendment protections, any contraception that is not strictly contraception will also become illegal. Pharmaceutical companies will have to develop a pill, or implant, or injection that prevents ovulation as its means of operating without creating an inhospitable environment in the uterus should a woman ovulate and become pregnant anyway since creating an inhospitable environment that results in the death of a person with 14th amendment protection would be manslaugher at the very least.
Sorry, you won't find any inconsistencies in my argument. I have done my homework.
You call names and make impotent little jokes, she simply attacks the person. Nice family you have there. No debating skills, but then no family has everything, right?
There is no hypocricy in my position. The pro choice side however, is riddled with hypocricy since your postion requires that you single out one group to whom you must apply an entirely different set of rules.
