I think I am wasting my time pointing out to you that this is both argumentum ad vericundiam and argumentum ad populum. The Sun does not rise and set by what any of these people believe either singularly or together. Nor does the fact that the SCOTUS didn't decide to hear the case prove that it has no merit. There are 4 idiots on the supreme court, and 1 nitwit.
These are two different issues. If you float this theory publicly, people will be looking for your tinfoil hat.
Yes, the recognition by the law for unborn children is just crazy talk.
I am not a lawyer, but I know the law is often imperfect, confusing, even contradictory. But much better than no law at all. And we are discussing what the law is here, not what we wish it would be.
And yet the "law" runs cowering in terror from addressing this issue. Yeah, that helps a lot.
The sun doesn't rise and set by it, but US law sure does. I refer to this fallacy list.
Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Vericundiam) – note cases in which it is not fallacious. (IR) Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Vericundiam): Not always fallacious. This form of argumentation is fallacious when an appeal to an inappropriate authority figure is used to gain acceptance of a claim.[emphasis in original]So when it comes to US law, I don't consider SCOTUS an inapproprate authority figure. And when it comes to the Constitution, I don't consider James Madison an inappropriate authority figure either, do you?
Nor does the fact that the SCOTUS didn't decide to hear the case prove that it has no merit. There are 4 idiots on the supreme court, and 1 nitwit.
Yes, but there are 4 good justices, and only 4 are needed to agree in conference for the case to proceed.
Yes, the recognition by the law for unborn children is just crazy talk.
Claiming that knowing the law of the land is jus soli and having you say that's tantamount to aprroving of abortion is crazy talk.