koshergrl
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,129
- 14,025
- 2,190
Law doesn't determine when life begins.
No one ever said it did.
Again, as we see in Casey, the Court wisely and correctly left that determination up to each individual, as deciding when life begins is not the purview of the courts, or the state, or a governing entity, or a majority of voters, for that matter.
Prior to viability, the woman alone makes that decision.
I know that she can.
I also know it's wrong.
And that the woman does not have the *right* to determine whether her baby is alive, or shall continue living, or not. It is a false right accorded to her by bad law, that flies in the face of science.
And you did maintain that a woman is best qualified to determine whether her baby is alive or not. And that is ridiculous.
""Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]