You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. You keep concepts that apply to fully grown human beings and applying them to a foetus. You really don't see why they're not the same thing do you? A foetus is not sentient. It can't feel pain, it can't feel distress. It is not viable before 24 weeks. These facts are anything but arbitrary.
I know exactly what it means and I countered all of your points to support otherwise. Your points are, it can't feel pain and it isn't viable. I stated that a person can be killed without feeling pain. Does that justify the action? Secondly, I stated that child isn't viable after 24 weeks and that a newborn will die on it's own. No one has yet countered that argument.
Since anyone can be killed without feeling pain, your argument relies on being viable, which is countered by the fact that a newborn child is MORE helpless outside the womb then it was inside the womb.
No my argument is that it is not a viable life form, within defined limits. You don't understand the need to say "Okay, 50% viability is an acceptable cut off", do you? Oh and before you jump on the words "defined limits", see what I said above. The data used to define the limits are not arbitrary.
You read above also. Your "defined limits" are arbitrary based on the counters I presented. No, I don't understand the need to say "okay, 50% viability is an acceptable cut off".
Seriously? This is what you took from what I said? You think a woman's only right in this scenario is to give birth?
What? I said the exact opposite. I said that no one is denying her health. So, if there is a situation where her health is in danger, no one is arguing against her having an abortion in that scenario.
Fine, advance your argument. Seeing as you're the king of goalpost moving and whatever I say you'll say it's not good enough for another three pages, I can't provide an appropriate example. Your move sparky.
The level of immaturity is overwhelming. You're not providing an example because it's not possible. A fact must be true, if there exist error, then it is no longer a fact. It's a very simple concept. So stop accusing me of "goal post moving", "back peddling" or any other accusation. I'm sure you spent that time trying guess my direction and to counter it. You must have came up with something or you would have kept whining. Let's see.
You agreed with the definition that I quoted that scientific theories are "constructed to explain, predict, and master phenomena".
What are the predictions? Are they predictions within the theory itself, predictions of applications of the theory, a combination of the two, something else or all of the above?