You are the one playing semantics. Is it alive at conception? Is it human?That’s that’s just the whole point, I don’t have to prove you wrong, the law clearly defines A fetus versus a baby. I don’t need to prove you wrong you need to prove them wrong. Life, as a concept, has nothing to do per say with the definition of fetus versus baby. And to be fair you actually should refer to as as a baby you should refer to it as an infant because for the first year of life medically it is referred to as an infant.
All that said, these are semantics. The crux of your question is not when life begins but when viable life begins and that’s the crux of the question with the law too.
The law is an ass.
Again its stroke of the pen nonsense. The constitution does not distinguish between "viability" and life. Its more semantics made up by persons in robes. The crux of the question is if it is a human life or not.
SCOTUS can rightfully jettison the viability nonsense at any time. It can just as easily do this as it did when it created it out of whole cloth claiming it was a shadow of things to come. Ghosts have no constitutional basis.
Humans are given constitutional rights not viable humans, but all.
When over educated lawyers in robes rule otherwise they are violating the constitution.
In a sense the baby (fetus in Latin) has a right to life at the moment of conception. The mother has a right to self defense.
The baby is genetically different from the mother and is not part of her body. The umbilical cord is there to allow the exchange of nutrients and oxygen because they are not one body but two separate entities.
That she might need to raise the child or set it up for adoption does not change the childs right to life.
When you argue the law you argue on shifting sand. And it is a circular argument at that. SCOTUS has ruled erroneously many times. Your argument is that the "law says" therefore you can not change the law.
My argument is that the law is wrong both constitutionally and morally because human life begins at conception. I argue that the law can and should be changed.
Slavery was just as settled law as this is. This isn't going away until the baby/child/fetus has its right to life protected. The pro-life abolitionist of the day will keep this issue alive.
Oh and the republic is NOT worth SAVING if it can not get this issue right.