Please source any authority that recognizes rights for the unborn. Quote that specifically, because I get tired of the attempts to post things they believe 'imply' the unborn have rights.
Poorly done. Try again.
If you frame counter arguments of substance I will. There's no reason to respond to your 'na huhs' as they are unsupported.
Alito, Roberts and Gorsuch are not legitmate justices."Stolen court." Too funny
How so?
Gore won. Not theoretically, not imaginally. He actually won Fl., and therefore the Presidency.
Gore lost and conceded the election. Gorsuch was nominated by Trump. Every justice went through the same process and now serves legitimately.
And a whoosh.
This makes absolutely no sense. There is no rational logic behind this mindset, it's just pure fringe partisanship.
It's not yet a human being. It will be in time. But not during gestation.
Depends on how one defines "alive." Some think it's conception. Some think it's "first breath." While a cell is "alive," it is not a human being or person. Merely a human cell.
And an irrelevant one.
See previous statement. Some people sure are hung up on the notion of "life" or "alive."
You are making shite up, as you so often do. It was never (ever) implied.
Why should your belief that an embryo is a human be binding law?
Ya know, not having a sense of humor might be a sign of that.
No, it's commentary on the irrational defense of Roe offered by so many from the left.
When did I ever say that should be the law?
Why do you feel the need to decide when a woman can or can't terminate a pregnancy?
You're confused. I don't make those decisions.
There's a time and a place where humor is appropriate. But what I pointed out in your post, is what I would call goading.
It was absolutely implied and that's why they're being quoted and video-outed everywhere. Your denial is hilarious.
Then you won't have a problem sourcing it. I've never seen a justice swear that they would never overturn precedent. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to be able to do just that. They would say that they respect precedent and give it the proper respect it deserves. But, no nominee would be stupid enough to say that.
Your answer defies basic science. A fetus has human DNA. It cannot be or become something else.
Science defines life.
The fact that a fetus is alive is not an "irrelevant point". It is precisely the point.
I don't know to which statement you are referring. But, once again, life is a major point in this discussion.
DNA is just a blueprint. It's the finished product that matters. Some like to make a big fuss about "life" or DNA, but completely ignore the fact that the unborn is not yet a person with rights, cannot survive outside the womb before viability, or that the woman gestating the fetus is an already born, human individual with rights which is paramount. Trying to focus on "life" or DNA and such is just an attempted to sway emotions.Your answer defies basic science. A fetus has human DNA. It cannot be or become something else.
Science defines life.
Does life begin at conception, or at some later time?
Learn five vital signs of life in the womb, and consider the claims of personhood for the unborn.www.lifemattersww.org
Science is clear: Each new human life begins at fertilization | Live Action
It is the central question in the abortion debate: when does life begin? Science teaches without reservation that life begins at fertilization (conception). It is a scientific fact that an organism ex...www.liveaction.org
The fact that a fetus is alive is not an "irrelevant point". It is precisely the point.
I don't know to which statement you are referring. But, once again, life is a major point in this discussion.