Once again you make an ignorant assertion (and Strawman) in a desperate attempt to steer attention away from yourself, especially given how you cannot seem to specify where the "right to life" is enumerated. Keep flailing! It only makes you look more foolush and desperate.
No, your posts are irrelevant, as they do not address the challenge and then go off topic. There is no debate: the unborn are not legal persons and do not have rights per the constitution and federal law. Simple fact. Neither have you offered any rational or legal argument as to why they should.
Glad you agree. You are dismissed.
Nonsequitur and off topic hypothetical.
No, the question was where is the right to life enumerated, as it pertains to the unborn. You're trying to deviate from that with so.e hypothetical that has nothing to do with the focus of the topic.
Check the law books. Either way, it doesn't apply to the unborn. So it's irrelevant.
It's not about me. If one thinks a law is wrong, they can make a legal argument and challenge to it. I have yet to see anyone make a rational legal argument to restrict abortion.
It's a diversionary tactic.
Because your questions are irrelevant hypotheticals that do not pertain to the topic at hand.
That's not an argument. That is simply a declaration. Make the legal argument.
Start child support from day one....and also get the fetus a SSN number.Here we go...fetuses have personhood. Bolding is mine.
"A flurry of executive orders that President Donald Trump signed into place Monday night included one that cemented language at the executive level to delegitimize transgender identities. But within the fold of that order, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” lay another damaging detail: the elevation of fetal personhood to the national stage.
“‘Female’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell,” the order reads in part. “‘Male’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”
By describing a fetus as a person from conception, Trump has legitimized fetal personhood. Pro-abortion activists have long warned that fetal personhood, an ideology that calls for providing equal human rights to a fetus (even if it’s a cluster of cells), will effectively strip pregnant people of their own rights. The legal language employed by fetal personhood also effectively categorizes any person receiving an abortion at any stage as a murderer."
Trump Sneaks Dangerous Rights for Fetuses Into Executive Order
Donald Trump slipped the anti-abortion language into an otherwise unrelated order.newrepublic.com
Again, make the argument. Why should they be legally recognized? A you're offering is your own opinion or feelings.
What reason is that? Be specific! Human being is a scientific designation, not a legal one. Trying to direct attention to me is avoiding an argument, not making one.