Your inability to give a biological argument demonstrates that you are arguing about personhood (when philosophically/religiously the human being in the womb deserves the right to life) and not the scientific fact that the conceptus is a unique, living, human being. It isn't after all dead.
Religion and philosophy will always take us to different places. Courts cannot deal with either one. Personhood is something courts can and must deal with in a civilized society.
You just subverted your own argument. You began with the false claim that the recognition that the conceptus is a human being is not a scientific but a philosophical and/or religious question. Now you make the false claims that a) the courts "cannot deal" with philosophy and religion and b) personhood is somehow not a philosophical and religious question. It isn't after all a scientific one! At no point have you provided a basis in the Constitution for the egregious error of the ruling in Roe v. Wade, your muddled arguments about law, philosophy,
Courts apply the law to particular cases; they do not negotiate the overlap among philosophy, religion, and civil law. That is the job of the legislative branch (when it so chooses). Both your understanding of biology and your understanding of our form of government are faulty.
This is where philosophy, and religion and law meet. I do not have all the answers, but this is why we have courts.
Your inability to give a biological argument demonstrates that you are arguing about personhood (when philosophically/religiously the human being in the womb deserves the right to life) and not the scientific fact that the conceptus is a unique, living, human being. It isn't after all dead.
Religion and philosophy will always take us to different places. Courts cannot deal with either one. Personhood is something courts can and must deal with in a civilized society.
Courts are not supposed to create laws or dictate policy. That's the legislature's job.
You just subverted your own argument. You began with the false claim that the recognition that the conceptus is a human being is not a scientific but a philosophical and/or religious question. Now you make the false claims that a) the courts "cannot deal" with philosophy and religion and b) personhood is somehow not a philosophical and religious question. It isn't after all a scientific one! At no point have you provided a basis in the Constitution for the egregious error of the ruling in Roe v. Wade, your muddled arguments about law, philosophy,
science, and religion notwithstanding.
Courts apply the law to particular cases; they do not negotiate the overlap among philosophy, religion, and civil law. That is the job of the legislative branch (when it so chooses). Both your understanding of biology and your understanding of our form of government are faulty.