[sph87]

Yes. It applies to all unborn children. The central question presented in these consolidated appeals is whether the Act contains an unwritten exception to that rule for extrauterine children -- that is, unborn children who are located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed.

The circumstances of the case, that is that it involves death of embryos kept in a cryogenic nursery, is not material to the validity of the argument.

They did not say: even if they are embryos. They said all unborn children.

This does not mean embryos ARE children. That was not what was argued nor what the court decided upon. You are inferring meaning outside the scope of the ruling. They side stepped the part you are upset about. They are very, very clear that this is about unborn children. The word embryos only appear once - while discussing the surround context, not the finding of the court or the question they were answering.

[LeafItAlone]

I am not inferring or making any claims. I am merely correcting your incorrect claims.

I believe that you are not arguing in good faith. The opinion is very clear on the matter. It is also extremely clear on what they are clarifying. You are making claims that make it clear you have either not read the opinion or are intentionally misconstruing it's language.

[sph87]

Haha you feel like I’m wrong but you just can’t articulate why? I understand bro. Have a good night.

[LeafItAlone]

I've provided you with the document to read and quoted very specific, very clear, very unambiguous sections that you then somehow misinterpret.

The Court: "We find X to be true".

You: "The Court is saying Z".