Replies

I think I finally see why you keep raising the false connection between human being and constitutional definitions: your obsession regarding the defense of abortion on demand prevents you from comprehending the 'other vagaries' of the human dilemma; science can and is conceiving individual human beings outside of a woman's body and now implanting these alive embryonic beings into artificial womb environs.

If the embryos are completely disenfranchised, then the fate of these alive individual human beings is completely discretionary for the holders of these beings and their demise is completely arbitrary based on the utilitarian purposes of the holders at any age in the gestational process. If the embryonic individuals are however perceived as human beings worthy of protection, your ardent assertions as to the complete disenfranchisement of womb bound (in a woman's body) alive individual human beings in favor of only the woman's rights regarding her bodily integrity (though the alive unborn are their not by any effort on their part and except in cases of rape, there at the invitation of the woman) begins to collapse upon its own mis-characterizations of the ones being disenfranchised so that they may be dealt with by the serial killing abortionists.

I think I finally see why you keep raising the false connection between human being and constitutional definitions:

In your insistence that abortion -- [or killing an embryo], is murder, YOU raise the 'personhood' legal question.

your obsession regarding the defense of abortion on demand prevents you from comprehending

My only 'obsession' is in defending our Constitution.

the 'other vagaries' of the human dilemma; science can and is conceiving individual human beings outside of a woman's body and now implanting these alive embryonic beings into artificial womb environs. If the embryos are completely disenfranchised, then the fate of these alive individual human beings is completely discretionary for the holders of these beings and their demise is completely arbitrary based on the utilitarian purposes of the holders at any age in the gestational process.

Embryos are not yet persons/human beings.

If the embryonic individuals are however perceived as human beings worthy of protection, your ardent assertions

Big 'if', -- and, -- I am not "ardent". You are the one nearly out of control here again.

as to the complete disenfranchisement of womb bound (in a woman's body) alive individual human beings in favor of only the woman's rights regarding her bodily integrity (though the alive unborn are their not by any effort on their part and except in cases of rape, there at the invitation of the woman) begins to collapse upon its own mis-characterizations of the ones being disenfranchised so that they may be dealt with by the serial killing abortionists.

I've made no mis-characterizations. -- Calm yourself.