I will take that as your admission that your speech is false, obscure, and incorrect. You should be disappointed that your misuse of these terms required me to object to them. Indeed unreasonably false, obscure and incorrect claims require us to decode your speech as best we can in order to try understanding them, and this does limit us. However, that reflects an increase, not a decrease, in the mental powers of your readers. And as long as you cling to the notion that obscurity is equivalent to revelation, that will pretty much limit your understanding about much of the world around you. Since you have attached the spurious idea science of abortion to what is actually an abortion of science there was no point in visiting your site. Since you have attached the spurious idea Laws of Science to what are actually the Laws of RussellCrawford there was no point in visiting your site. Neither any information propounding an abortion of science nor the Laws of RussellCrawford are reasonable, therefore by avoiding your site I have reduced my risk of being infected by unreason. My struggles to decode your cryptic speech were set in motion when you decided to violate the standard rules of rhetoric. Said the person who introduced abortion to the Biology forum. The Laws of RussellCrawford are rendered invalid by definition. Your lack of concern about Roe v Wade is made evident by your disrespect for the work done by the Court in its probe into the questions you have raised here. Indeed, while the Court involved itself with the Science of Abortion, the Laws of RussellCrawford have entirely concerned themselves with the Abortion of Science, hence your clash with the superior wisdom of the Court is understandable. Viability is not a claim but an element of the offense of criminal abortion, and was made relevant once you laid the factual predicate that the Court's wisdom is inferior to yours. Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false. "Right foundation" and "abortion of science" are incongruent, therefore the obscurity you are revealing is useless to me. I have read all or most of what you posted here, which is more than enough to detect the difference between Science of Abortion and Abortion of Science. Advice to be clear and accurate is always useful, which is why you also said your remarks will be of great assistance to me. Indeed your lack of learning and communication skills are your second- and third-most fatal weaknesses. I'm convinced you believe you were successful with them. In any case your failures to yourself linger in what you've posted here. So it's settled then. You will deliberately persist with the use of obscure speech. Deliberately, from the admission above. By your own admission the reader cannot be blamed for decoding errors that may occur while unraveling your cryptic speech. Deliberate obscurity is not innovative, nor is the use of abortions of science -- to leverage spurious beliefs -- anything new. I'll take that as an admission that you obtained help in doing so. The art of deception is very old. My zone of comfort is lies within the candid speech of scientists, which is why I recommended you should try applying it yourself. There is no correct way to lie. Having laid this factual predicate you forfeit any rightful complaints about references to Roe v Wade. Since the complexity of this topic is exceedingly shallow, this explains why you're bogged down here. For that reason my references here shall mean The Laws of RussellCrawford, et al. If you were "exposed as a complete idiot" and it was a consequence of my desire to bring the Science of Abortion into conjunction with the Abortion of Science, then this was as much as reflex response as anything, having long resented the social conservative agenda and its relentless attacks on Roe v Wade. Your statement, that you were "exposed as a complete idiot" was a statement of your opinion, not mine. Indeed I think you have not been fully exposed. I have been the first to observe and write about the deliberate obscurity of the Laws of RussellCrawford, et al., which state that the Science of Abortion is inversely proportional to the Abortion of Science. You are the only person here claiming authorship of laws. I only claim discovery of the above law, not that I authored it. You authored it. Your ability to persuade illiterate people demonstrates that narcissism is the fodder of naiveté. In fact controversy precedes you. Which is why I am encouraging you to cease and desist. Your belief that science-illiterate people understand you comports with the Laws of RussellCrawford, et al., demonstrating once again that the Science of Abortion is inversely proportional to the Abortion of Science. A corollary to this is that the science-literate people will not understand you. Since the above mentioned laws impart to you the status of a demigod who reigns not only over the Supreme Court but over all of science, it's fair to say that you can claim anything you like without violating your own laws. Indeed with power comes responsibility. Use it to clean up this thread. Answering in code may work for demigods, but mere mortals need the PIN number. The first sign of trolling is friction with the mods, particularly one as bright and mellow as he, and may result in instant demotion from demigod status. That should tell you that the power of persuasion is inversely proportional to the rate of obscurity, Leaving the reader to decode obscure, cryptic and absurd speech is hardly a matter of making distinctions. No, all of your language errors are entirely the reader's fault, since demigods are by definition indemnified and held harmless. Allow me to tell you how the Laws work among mere mortals. Down here we have a law that states statistically independent events cannot be mutually exclusive. Now, as cryptic as that may seem to a demigod, it's actually just part of the Science of Abortion which, owing to its inverse proportionality to the Abortion of Science does not comport with any mnemonic devices or milestone markers you may need to "acknowledge the distinction", it nevertheless does reign over us -- and I hate to say this but: at the Supreme Commander of the Universe level, quite a few pay grades ahead of yours. So, unlike you, we must submit to its will. Perhaps this post will apprise them of said Laws, such that any such future remarks will be properly classified as ad semideum. And from now on they become ad semideum as well. Maybe you were filled with the glory of the above said Laws. Once you cripple the dialogue you are not in a position to complain of walls.. Evidently you equate fairness with swallowing lies. Blaming the reader is no cure for your admitted language errors. Recognizing that you are not in a position to condemn anyone but yourself, your generosity in doing so is duly noted. The up or down vote on your credibility was decided, among other things, once you proclaimed that statistically independent events are mutually exclusive. As these threads tend to run in shallow waters, we have customarily posted first principles of science and math in them, which, by definition, attack ignorance of same. Thus, we will universally state (and BTW that underlined bit is a HUGE requirement to distinguishing a law): statistically independent events are NOT mutually exclusive. On the contrary the posters apply those same first principles every day within their professional capacities. It is understandable that you attach shame to first principles of math and science. If in fact you wanted to be understood you should have applied the principles of your freshman class in rhetoric rather than blaming readers for the state of this thread. You have entirely based your thesis on the covert statement that the Supreme Court erred in its decision. Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false. Ignoring the obscure genotype->phenotype reference, the non-viability of any fetus within the first trimester renders [whatever is hidden behind the obscure usage] moot. Thereafter, the question of viability is a matter of expert medical judgment, which renders [whatever is hidden behind the obscure usage] moot. Therefore the entire question of [whatever is hidden behind the obscure usage] is rendered moot for all cases, from conception through delivery or termination. You have not given any foundation for applying this to your denial of the Court's opinion. It is therefore frivolous.. Your understanding of phenotype and genotype is evident from the context of your posts, which have provided no grounds for injecting either one into the conversation. Having laid the factual predicate for referring to Roe v Wade you forfeit all such complaints. The Laws of RussellCrawford et al. are rendered invalid by definition. Viability is of critical value to any person on trial for destroying a fetus. If they die simply because they were not viable, then that is irrelevant. If they die for any other reason, it is moot. It was your premise they were viable, not mine. Make up your mind. There are at least as many ways to prove an embryo is alive as there are ways to prove that a viable fetus was killed. The spurious notion "enough DNA" is ungrounded and therefore falls. Since all humans possess human DNA, this falls by definition. There is no way to prove a hypothetical, so the fragment "to live as a human" is spurious. There is no way to prove a hypothetical, so the fragment "if it will be alive at birth" is spurious. There are at least as many ways to prove by sonogram that an embryo is alive as there are ways to prove that a viable fetus was killed. There is no way to prove a hypothetical, so the fragment "will live to birth" is spurious. Humans live in uncountable ways, none of which is afforded to a fetus if it is destroyed, and either none or one of which is afforded to any culprit found guilty of destroying it. However, all of that is moot, since there is no way to prove a hypothetical, and therefore your statement is also spurious. There is no factual predicate linking "phenotype" to "abortion", nor are there any grounds for qualifying the phenotype as "correct ", therefore the claim " the DNA must "express" the correct phenotype" must be rejected. There is no way to prove a hypothetical, so the clause "if the embryo will produce a living baby" is spurious. You should be sorrier that the reader doesn't know what you are talking about. The opposite is being disputed: that the deprivation of a potential life from a viable fetus constitutes an element of the offense of criminal abortion. The premise "the fetus cannot be proved to be alive " is ungrounded, therefore the rest of the sentence falls. A human fetus is by definition human. This therefore also falls. Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false. The subject of "forcing birth" is ungrounded and therefore falls. Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false. The factual predicate for attaching the relevance of "phenotype" to "abortion" has not been laid. More specifically, the technical relationship remains ungrounded in any fact or evidence adopted here. This claim therefore falls. As you have already admitted, the language of your claims is inherently incomprehensible, despite repeated requests for you to use candid plain speech. Here no one asked for your guidance in technical subjects. It’s merely been noted that this is ungrounded and therefore falls. Roe v Wade is central to this thread since you are attacking the decision. It is relevant in connection to the biological definition of fetal viability since the case explains the science that informed the Court in its decision. Since Roe v Wade is relevant to this thread, and for all the reasons stated in Roe v Wade which establish the relevance of the Constitution to the topic of this thread, the Constitution is relevant to this thread, and it is relevant in connection to the biological definition of fetal viability. The Laws of RussellCrawford are rendered invalid by definition. Since Roe v Wade was a state claim resolved at the Supreme Court, and for the reasons listed above, the topic of state laws regulating abortion is relevant to this thread. The Laws of RussellCrawford are rendered invalid by definition. Since Roe v Wade decided (a) case(s) at bar in the courts of common law, the common law is relevant to this thread. Having laid the factual predicate by introducing moral considerations of abortion, you made religion relevant to this thread. Since the question of abortion revolves entirely around the discussion delivered by the Court in Roe v Wade, and since the ethical and legal boundaries in which abortions shall or shall not be conducted hinged entirely on a Court informed by science, the ethical and legal reasons to protect the right of life retained by the viable fetus will never be moot, but especially because of the absurd premises you have propounded here, and made so under the law which states statistically independent events are not mutually exclusive, Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false. Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false. The status quo incorporates the Law of Independent and Mutually Exclusive Events. When you learn to propound clear, candid and plain speech, to be reasonable technically accurate, and to state claims within the conventions of standard rhetoric, you may achieve the status of a mentor. When you learn the Law of Independent and Mutually Exclusive Events, you can discard your Laws of RussellCrawford. Until then you are impeding yourself. Only an open mind can inform itself of the facts which hold you in check.