It is the event that is the absolute prerequisite to being a "person" under common law.
If you can't readily name that event from the description above, you are arguing from a point of abject ignorance on this issue, and all your table-thumping about the 5th and 14th Amendments will do you no good.
Please state your position more clearly, and please don't instruct me as to which literary device i should use to answer you.
If you cannot handle a little sarcasm, then maybe you should grow a slightly thicker skin.
i think you mistated this sentence. Please reword it so i'll be sure what you're saying.
btw, do you believe that any statutory law that deprives citizens of their constitution, civil rights should be overturned?
I hate to tell you this, but you should not comment on others' writing lacking clarity when your own is so poor.
There is a fundamental defect in common law that affects all right-to-life cases. This defect must corrected in statutory law. It goes back to the event I asked you to name above.
Now, either you're an ignorant individual, or you know what I'm talking about and are hell-bent on dodging the issue.
This is fun, isn't it?
This sentence seems ambiguous at best, and incoherent at least. What do you mean by the "it"?
If you can't readily name that event from the description above, you are arguing from a point of abject ignorance on this issue, and all your table-thumping about the 5th and 14th Amendments will do you no good.
i ask you again, what "event" are you referring to??? Re "abject ignorance", that is pyschological projection, and argumentum ad hominem. You do have a tendency toward fallacies.
If you cannot handle a little sarcasm, then maybe you should grow a slightly thicker skin.
You're still not making sense.
I hate to tell you this, but you should not comment on others' writing lacking clarity when your own is so poor.
Nice try, but your sentences don't make sense, while mine do.
There is a fundamental defect in common law that affects all right-to-life cases. This defect must corrected in statutory law. It goes back to the event I asked you to name above.
This is no way answers my question. Please refer back to it.
Now, either you're an ignorant individual, or you know what I'm talking about and are hell-bent on dodging the issue
Poohpooh, your projection is ironic. You lecturing me about ignorance is like John Kerry lecturing George W. Bush about consistency.
You're not the brightest bulb (which is why I long ago recommended Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic textbook to you), so don't even go there. Just asnwer the question I asked in my other post to you.