You are so misguided. For one, nowhere in this thread was it stated that the scope of argument is limited to federal law. It is very relevant that a common trend among states is that the unborn are being recognized as human being under the law. The U.S. Supreme Court itself has cited changing attitudes among state legislatures as reasons to overturn a previous ruling several times
You are also incorrect in stating that federal agents can shutdown the operations of medical marijuana industries in California. A federal judge for the Northern District of California has ruled that the federal government does not have the authority unless it can be shown that the marijuana or its paraphernalia has left or came from outside the State of California at any point in time, giving the feds jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause. If there is no interstate commerce, the feds can't do anything about it.
Well, the Supremacy Clause is pretty clear and blatant. Federal is all that truly matters. Not everyone lives in California, so for the sake of everyone else's sanity, let's avoid quoting California legal code a few thousand more times. I'm arguing at a federal level, where the will of the people as a nation comes together to create a governmental agenda. I do not care about the opinions of state legislatures, who are often populated by those to the extreme right or extreme left, because most do not take the time to vote for elections on state legislatures unless their elections coincide with more relevant ones. It's the same trend as primaries, when only the most fanatic voters (for the most part) come out in large numbers. So the will of the Californian people is irrelevant to that of the Pennsylvanians or Texans.
And as of my last checking, the DEA had full authority to shut down medical marijuana dispensaries and raid them for weed while their origin was "pending investigation". If this changed in the past two years, I stand corrected. However, the point as a whole still stands. The Supremacy Clause is a fundamental part of American government and federal law always trumps state law.
The sad thing is that there is no difference between killing someone in a hospital and killing someone on a street. Either way they still die, and either way it is still murder. Also, in my opinion a person gets their status as a person at the moment of conception, not at birth or any of this 'five weeks', etc, stuff.
Right, well you can think that, but you'd be wrong. By most reasonable definitions of a functioning human being, a fetus falls short. And there is plenty of difference. You are not killing someone in the hospital, you are ending the potential for a cluster of cells to
possibly grow into a human being one day, if the pregnancy goes well, saving the mother undue hardship and potential medical complications, in addition to preventing the same problems for the fetus. A fetus is not killed, it is aborted. As in the process to make it become a human being is abandoned. Killing a living, breathing, functioning, communicating man or woman is the taking of a developed life and is unlawful. There is an extreme difference, and I really hope that you are only claiming not to see it for an ideological standpoint and not actual ignorance.
Well, it is, isn't it? Also, I think that a sunflower isn't the exact same as a human, to a point where they can't be compared.
Also, my reasoning is that it is a human, and that is why they shouldn't be murdered, just because they rely on another human.
No, it is not. A sunflower seed has the potential to be planted and become a sunflower. Or it has the potential to end up in birdcrap and amount to nothing, or be sent to a plant and processed into a snack for people. In the same manner that a fetus could end up being a human life eventually or end up dying stillborn or being aborted and having its stem cells donated to research that can save millions of lives.
