So now you are switching to an ownership argument?...just like the old slaveholders...

How about conjoined twins (siamese twins)...they are not separate from each other...are you saying that one is more human than the other...or that one has more rights than the other?

See myopic...your arguments don't hold up equally for everyone...you have to create a special category of human for them to apply to ...just like the arguments for owning slaves..blacks had to be somehow inferior and subject to being placed in a sub human category for their arguments to work...eventually, the society outgrew such primitive thinking and today, we look back on slave owners with disgust...in the not too distant future, Roe will be overturned, and my grandkids are going to look back on pro choicers with the same disgust as we look back on the slavers...

__________________
It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

twins have been born. their relationship is mutual. the fetus does not sustain the mother.

my arguments not ownership, you can just drop that right there...otherwise i would be arguing that mothers should be allowd to kill their born children.

fact is government can't tell you what to do with your body, it's the womans body. he's the one sustaining the fetus, it''s her choice whether or not to keep it.

fact is when it's inside the mother, it's up to her. yes it may be developing seperatly, but the fact is it's not an individual.

__________________
I am a stone, I do not move. I take my time, I let him come closer. I have only one bullet. I aim at his eye. I do not tremble, I have no fear.

Here are your exact words...

You stated quite clearly that she owns it and therefore has the right to do with it whatever she will..

The real fact is that the government tells us every day what we can and can't do with our bodies..

And I don't deny that the unborn is dependent upon the woman..but I can't find any legal precedent that makes dependence a justifiable reason to kill...can you?

Can you provide any credible scientific evidence that the unborn is not an individual?...or is that just something you say in an attempt to justify your position?

It's DNA certainly suggests that it is an individual...its metabolism is operating without direction from the mother's body...that suggests that it is an individual...the mother doesn't provide anything to it but nourishment for it to grow...that suggests that it is an individual...the mother does not generate any of its cells or body parts...that suggests that it is an individual...

I find that I could not fabricate a reasonable, creidble argument to suggest that it is not an individual...lets hear yours...and the "toe" argument isn't worth repeating..

__________________
It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

it's certianly on its way to being human, with own DNA etc, but the fact remains it's hardly an individual.

__________________
I am a stone, I do not move. I take my time, I let him come closer. I have only one bullet. I aim at his eye. I do not tremble, I have no fear.

If it isn't human, exactly what species is it?...and if it is a fact that the unborn is not an individual, then it should be quite easy to prove...step up and prove it. Repeating an untruth over and over, simply will not make it true and will not enhance your credibility at all..

__________________
It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

i dont see it making and independant desisions for itself.

__________________
I am a stone, I do not move. I take my time, I let him come closer. I have only one bullet. I aim at his eye. I do not tremble, I have no fear.

So, one must be able to make independent decisions in order to be an individual...does that mean that newborns are not individuals?...does that mean that 35 year olds who have severe mental retardation are not individuals?...how about people who have sustained brain damage in automobile accidents and are in comas...they don't make independent decisions, are they no longer individuals?

You are going to have to do much better than that myopimouse, if you want to prove that unborns are not individual human beings...you said that it was a fact...since we are talking biology here, how about some scientific fact that unborns are not individuals?..

You have made the statement, now back it up, or admit that you made the statement in error..

Why don't you just admit that you are in favor of killing innocent human beings for no better reason than convenience...That is the one argument that I can not tear down...or is the reality of your position to distasteful for you to admit openly?

__________________
It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

but in the body it wasn't developed yet, your other exaples are disavled, which is different becasue they are clearly individuals...i don't see redards being attached inside a womb

__________________
I am a stone, I do not move. I take my time, I let him come closer. I have only one bullet. I aim at his eye. I do not tremble, I have no fear.

A body is nothing more than the entirety of the parts that make up an individual...when an unborn is a single cell, that cell represents its body in its entirety...and your body is not finished its development either..we never stop developing and changing...and an umbilical cord does not make the unborn less of an individual than the attatchment of conjoined twins makes them less individual...

keep trying...sooner or later you will run out of strawmen and realize that all this time you have simply been wrong..

__________________
It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

so surely a sperm and egg that are just about to fuse just haven't developed into a body yet?

__________________
I am a stone, I do not move. I take my time, I let him come closer. I have only one bullet. I aim at his eye. I do not tremble, I have no fear.