Read It: Here's the Supreme Court's Basis for Overruling Roe and Casey

According to which definition exactly?

 

All of them, unless you want to allow special privlages based on how people identify something.
Some people identify tiny their pets as children for instance, others their plants as pets, etc.

They don't get special privlages now do they?

 

Nothing about "born" here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baby

 

Also doesn't exclude what I told you, nor does it mention fetus now does it?

 

What you "told" me included "born."

Correct. What's your point?

 

You must have missed the above post. Either that or it was too much for you to handle and reply to!

 

Find a definition that contradicts what i told you, then you may have a point.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baby

 

"An extremely young child" fits what I told you, and does not contradict born.
A fetus is not a child, a Zygote is not a child, neither are babies.
They are their labels till they are excluded from being a fetus or Zygote.

So tell us what excludes you or me, or an infant from being called a fetus or zygote?
Hint: It has something to do with having the ability to exercise our "born" rights.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

 

Because we're not one. Pretty simple really.

 

There ya go.
All that back an forward for nothing.

 

"Fetus" and "zygote" are scientific terms. "Baby" and "child" are not.

 

Glad you learned something.

 

So you agree on the distinction. I'm glad that you agree that your analogy failed miserably.

 

What is it with these people being unable to answer simple questions?

 

You can't abort a baby isn't an analogy.

 

I can't hear it, but what's the right answer?
It's not a simple question, ask all the people that were only born because their mothers were able to abort at a young age, and went on to start families. What is the value of those families?

 

"Fetus" and "zygote" was your analogy.

 

Nope.
Wasn't referencing those to make an analogy, but to further my point you can't abort a baby.

 

Yes, it is a simple question. Does an unborn baby have value? And there are plenty of people who's had a baby at 16-18 years old and guess what? They've had families also. You are not barred from having families just because you had a baby early in life.

 

Well then its how you identify it.
Some people value their pets as children, their plants as pets. So its up to the mother how she values the fetus.
She may value it as an invading pathogen, or as a baby that's already born. Its up to the mother and only the mother, not some bureaucrat.

 

Sorry, but it is the governments job to make sure that humans are not killed needlessly. You know, that whole "Right to Life" thing.... With your logic then its perfectly acceptable for a psycho to kill because how they view humans is up to him and not some bureaucrat.

 

Only if you completely ignore the whole inhabiting a womans body thing.

 

It was the woman's choice to get pregnant. As such she gave up her bodily autonomy voluntarily.