tpaine said, " Good to know that you can admit to reason, - when it stares you in the face."
and
"Our Constitution defines who is 'legally;' a human being, and afforded equal protection of the law. - It says [read the 14th] you must 'born' [defined as being capable of being born]. - Viable. --- Embryos are not yet 'viable'.
Thus, in order to win your argument, you must amend our Constitution.
-- Good luck.""
The fact that you should be able to see as reason is that our Constitution does not prove who is a human being, since the species of each organism is a matter of fact. Again, it is simple biology.
You repeat several fallicies. 1. That personhood depends on law, geography, or location. 2. That it is up to those who would protect the right to life to prove the personhood of a member of the species. 3.That the words of the 14th define a person when the amendment does no such thing. Perhaps it is your unique vocabulary. 4. You confuse the discussion of IVF embryos and cloned human embryos with the cause of "a woman's right to choose" an abortion.
Whether a woman has a right to empty her uterus is irrelevant to the discussion of embryonic stem cell and cloning, since the embryos are not within a uterus.
I'm sure that you understand the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient." The use of the words "born" and "naturalized" in the Constitution does not make it *necessary* for a human being to be either in order to have the right not to be killed, enslaved, or a "person" who has the right to equal protection under the law. Otherwise all visitors to our country would lose these rights at our borders.
Your statement that the word "born" has anything to do with "capable of being born" is nowhere in the Constitution. The definition of "born" is not that elastic. The mere fact that you reach so far as to twist your thinking around this "definition" should tell you that you know that you are lying to yourself.
The onus is on you to justify your discrimination between one member of the species and another, not the other way around. ANd you will not succeed by bringing in irrelevant circumstances and incorrect definitions.
Your statement that the word "born" has anything to do with "capable of being born" is nowhere in the Constitution. The definition of "born" is not that elastic.
The USSC was using common sense. At some point an embryo/fetus becomes a functional person, "viable", -- with equal rights to its mother.
The mere fact that you reach so far as to twist your thinking around this "definition" should tell you that you know that you are lying to yourself.
I don't lie about our Constitution. -- Don't need to, as its intent is clear. Our individual liberties are to be protected.
The onus is on you to justify your discrimination between one member of the species and another, not the other way around.
You want to 'discriminate' against a woman from the moment of conception, and have government place her unviable embryo's supposed 'rights' over her own, -- not me.