Abortion

[vyo476]

I just had a thought that I figured I'd post about. In our legal system, certain rights and responsibilities are legally afforded to the parents of a child. I'm curious - when are those rights and duties instilled, legally speaking? Before or after birth?

This stems out of the whole "human incubator" argument. While one citizen surely cannot be mandated by the US government to serve as an extreme guardian to another, parents are mandated by the government to serve the interests of their children, in one way or another (think child support).

Just a thought.

 

[numinus]

I don't believe anyone said it wasn't "life". The question is can one human being be mandated by the government to incubate another against her will. The United States Supreme Court... and I... say no they can't. The woman has control up and until viability. As it should be.

What do you mean 'against her will'??? The possibility of pregnancy is inherent in the choice to have sex. When one chooses to have sex, that person accepts the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of such a choice.

In this case, the consequence is the life of ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, which may not be destroyed just because one chooses to.

The necessity of the time the government can step in is the legal issue and the finding is what it is. Abortion is legal and the last time I checked that is the court of last resort..

The decision itself was for political expediency. It was meant to placate all sides EXCEPT LOGIC.

A) It's not always consentual... and you and I can't ever prove that it ever is unless we are present.

Now you are saying rape is not a proveable crime??

Unbelieveable!!!

B) Free will cuts both ways. You have the right to both privacy and your own body and anything therein. In the case of pregnancy that would be up to viability. And that makes perfect sense. You can't force someone to carry and deliver a child against their will. It never has worked. It never will work. You just want to punish the woman's health and safety because you don't agree with her own individual personal decision.

It does NOT make any sense at all because the definition of 'viability' is ARBITRARY. The offspring of a fly is the same organism regardless of its phase of development - egg - pupa - adult. So it is for every living being on the planet.

And I find particular offense in the use of the word 'viability' - which in academic terms, is used in terms of entire eco-systems. It takes on an entirely new and absurd meaning in the context of pregnancy. How can a perfectly healthy fetus be declared 'not viable' at different stages of pregnancy when it was MEANT TO UNDERGO ALL THE STAGES OF PREGNANCY?????

I'm sorry but that's just not the case. If it were abortion would be illegal.

Legal and illegal is always subject to judicial review. The sc admits it can very well err on certain decisions. And that is why we are still talking about this.

I'll take that to mean you understand they are the same, the result was the same, and you recognize that the next of kin had the legal standing.

The next of kin has the legal right to determine the form of medical treatment. What realm of stupidity is killing a form of medical treatment, eh???

You are extrapolating this to its supreme absurdity.

No my friend... that points out how inconsistent the anti-choice point of view is. You say it should absolutely be illegal for a woman to have an abortion or take the birth control pill for that matter because it kills off 2 living cells. But it's just hunky dory to force full grown adults that don't want to kill... to kill or be killed against their will. Come on... what kind of happy horse **** is that, seriously? Think about it.

This is obviously a "Physician heal thyself" moment...

The proposition is entirely consistent.

The use of artificial birth control AFTER conception is a from of abortion. The use of artificial birth control BEFORE conception, logically, is not.

See there's hope. The very last line and we are in agreement!

An agreement can only come from a confluence of principle.

If you deny the state the right to execute a criminal for the common good, and yet arrogate for a woman that same right for personal convenience - those are ARBITRARY conclusions not based on some valid and enduring principle.

 

[top gun]

numinus;28852]What do you mean 'against her will'??? The possibility of pregnancy is inherent in the choice to have sex. When one chooses to have sex, that person accepts the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of such a choice.

Against her will obviously means "she doesn't want to carry & bear a child". There is no mandate that she give over her body to the government because of "circumstances". It's still her body.

In this case, the consequence is the life of ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, which may not be destroyed just because one chooses to.

I've already documented this in detail. We do it all the time in a number of situations. You can't pick and choose to bolster your arguement. Women have a right to control their own bodies and anything contained therein.

The decision itself was for political expediency. It was meant to placate all sides EXCEPT LOGIC.

I'll take that to mean you understand abortion up to viability is a legal procedure.

Now you are saying rape is not a proveable crime??

Unbelieveable!!!

No, I'm saying ALL rape isn't a provable crime and you and I and the government won't be there to know. Only the woman will know.

Am I to believe you are fine with abortion if the women says she was rapped but can't identify her attacker. I'm betting no. Your view is rape, incest or barnyard sodomy... it doesn't matter. FORCE HER TO HAVE CHILDREN! It's wrong and it's a sad position to take in my opinion.

It does NOT make any sense at all because the definition of 'viability' is ARBITRARY. The offspring of a fly is the same organism regardless of its phase of development - egg - pupa - adult. So it is for every living being on the planet.

And again I don't think anyone is trying to deny that after and egg is fertilized it isn't "life". I'm even agreeing the cells were living even before fertilization. None of that makes any difference at all. There is more than one issue at hand here. Up until something can survive on it's own you can't have the government Gestapoing it's way in saying YOU MUST HAVE A CHILD. It's ridiculous not to mention totally unenforceable.

And I find particular offense in the use of the word 'viability' - which in academic terms, is used in terms of entire eco-systems. It takes on an entirely new and absurd meaning in the context of pregnancy. How can a perfectly healthy fetus be declared 'not viable' at different stages of pregnancy when it was MEANT TO UNDERGO ALL THE STAGES OF PREGNANCY?????

Well I don't want you to be offended "by a word" but viability in relationship to abortion is pretty darn clear IMO. When something can live on it's own without the requirement of a host to incubate it. Yeap... that seems very clear to me.

Legal and illegal is always subject to judicial review. The sc admits it can very well err on certain decisions. And that is why we are still talking about this.

That's fine.

The next of kin has the legal right to determine the form of medical treatment. What realm of stupidity is killing a form of medical treatment, eh???

The example is "killing" something is allowed in various forms for various reasons. I go back to my initial... The reality is it's not a perfect world. No one's saying anyone should have any abortion. It's saying the woman has standing in personal medical decisions involving her own personal body and not the government. If there were someway to magically extract the fetus and the government wanted to pay for it's total care and upbringing that "might " be something reasonably debatable. But again I'll just say... You can't force someone to be an incubator.

You are extrapolating this to its supreme absurdity.

Ditto.

The use of artificial birth control AFTER conception is a from of abortion. The use of artificial birth control BEFORE conception, logically, is not.

Well you fly that idea out to the people of America that you want to take the current safe & effective Birth Control Pill away from women and I'll be ecstatically happy with the political results. I'd call the Republican help line and offer that up if I were you. The election is only a few months away.

An agreement can only come from a confluence of principle.

If you deny the state the right to execute a criminal for the common good, and yet arrogate for a woman that same right for personal convenience - those are ARBITRARY conclusions not based on some valid and enduring principle.

Ah.... but the fact is all executed people are not crimminals are they? It's a "judgement" call.

And being rapped, having incest forced upon you, being forced to endure someone else making you violently & physicall ill, or having the government force you to bear children against you will as some type of Big Brother incubator for the nation... is not conceniece in any sense of the word.

So again... I feel we really are in agreement. Legal in an imperfect world.

 

[palerider]

Shouldn't the arguement here, then, be what constitutes a human being, not whether abortion is right or wrong? Or is there another thread for that equally pointless arguement?

Nealis v. Baird, 996 P.2d 438, 453 (Okla. 1999) “Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that a human life begins at conception.” (citing KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993); SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992); MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984); DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990)

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology”
T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

"Not only is it a life, but, by its intrinsic biological nature, it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”
E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE,]16–17

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

Any questions?

As for an "opinion that cannot be supported intellectually is useless"...I hate to have to tell you that any opinion is valid. A belief is just as strong as a fact. Or, you know, we would have gotten rid of churches as soon as Science became a widely accepted thing.

An opinion is a a belief that rests on grounds that are insufficient to produce complete certainty. When enough fact exists to produce that certainty, then an opinion is useless; especially one that flies in the face of the facts. And sorry, a belief is not as strong as a fact. There was once the belief that the earth is flat. Tell me, do you think that that belief is as strong as the reality that the earth is not flat?

And the education I am receiving currently has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter.

Obviously.

 

[palerider]

It is with Siamese Twins when the choice is separation with a high likelihood one will die but the other will have a better life. Happens all the time. Parents are able to make that decision... not you, not me, not the government.

You never fail to base your positons on information that simply isn't true. When twins are separated and one is going to die, the decision is always made because if surgury is not performed, both will die. We have been through this before and I challenged you to find an instance in which two healthy twins that shared a vital organ were separated for no other reason than to be separated. You were unable to find such an instance. Now here you are spreading the same clap trap around for a second time.

 

[palerider]

I just had a thought that I figured I'd post about. In our legal system, certain rights and responsibilities are legally afforded to the parents of a child. I'm curious - when are those rights and duties instilled, legally speaking? Before or after birth?

This stems out of the whole "human incubator" argument. While one citizen surely cannot be mandated by the US government to serve as an extreme guardian to another, parents are mandated by the government to serve the interests of their children, in one way or another (think child support).

Just a thought.

Women have been charged and convicted for reckless endangerment and other crimes who willfully took actions that endangered the lives of their unborn children. Clearly, they could not be charged and convicted of such a crime if they were not endangering the health or life of another human being.

A great deal of legal precedent has been amassed over the years that establishes the personhood of the unborn. Maybe this wasn't intentional, but the fact is, that it has happened. Roe is on very shaky ground since it was decided based on an argument that unborns were not human beings and therefore not persons. In his majority decision, justice blackmun acknowledged that should the argument for personhood ever be made, that roe will collapse. Since the argument has clearly been made, and an ever growing legal body of precedent established, it is clear that roe is going to fall.

 

[palerider]

Ah.... but the fact is all executed people are not crimminals are they? It's a "judgement" call.

When each and every unborn gets his day in court and the requisite appeals before he is executed, then you will have an argument. Until then, you are just talking about one human being killing another human being without legal consequence for no better reason than convenience.

 

[top gun]

It is with Siamese Twins when the choice is separation with a high likelihood one will die but the other will have a better life. Happens all the time. Parents are able to make that decision... not you, not me, not the government.

You never fail to base your positons on information that simply isn't true. When twins are separated and one is going to die, the decision is always made because if surgury is not performed, both will die. We have been through this before and I challenged you to find an instance in which two healthy twins that shared a vital organ were separated for no other reason than to be separated. You were unable to find such an instance. Now here you are spreading the same clap trap around for a second time.

I've made it a habit to not respond to palerider because of the insults but this was too good to pass on . Compare for yourselves the statements in red my friends. You'll see going into it that it's not because both are going to die if they are not separated.

All people have to do is read (or have Google ).

It's obviously NOT this... "the decision is always made because if surgury is not performed, both will die."

Conjoined Twins

Conjoined twins are among the rarest of human beings. There are probably fewer than a dozen adult pairs living in the world today. Only a few hundred pairs of conjoined twins are born in the whole world each year - they appear about once in every 100,000 births - but more than half of them are stillborn, and one in three live for only a few days.

Of those who survive, a very small number will be selected for separation surgery. But as there are few hospitals with the skills and experience to perform this kind of surgery, separation is still a very unusual event. The harrowing decisions which surgeons have to make when faced with conjoined twins have been highlighted by the recent case in Manchester, England. Separating conjoined twins is not only technically challenging; it can involves life and death decisions about whether one twin should be sacrificed in the hope of saving the other. But "sacrifice surgery" has a poor record of success, and the Manchester case is the latest round in an international debate about the value of separation operations.

The confidence of the surgeons, who believe that separation is essential, is challenged by medical historian, Dr Alice Dreger of Michigan State University. She argues that twins themselves might take a different view - if they were ever given a chance to express it.

Horizon interviews two pairs of adult conjoined twins - Lori and Reba Schappell in Pennsylvania and Masha and Dasha Krivoshlyapova in Moscow. Lori and Reba are joined at the head; Masha and Dasha are joined in their lower body. They say that they prefer their conjoined lives, despite the problems and challenges, rather than face the risks of separation surgery.

Lori and Reba live independent lives in their own apartment in Pennsylvania; Lori enjoys working with computers and Reba is developing a career as a country singer. Masha and Dasha had a difficult childhood; they were subjected to medical experimentation when they were very young and hidden away from the public. Since the end of the communist era they have been able to tell their story. Their autobiography is being written by a British journalist, Juliet Butler.

Horizon also follows surgeons at the Red Cross Children's Hospital in Cape Town, Africa as they plan to separate eight month old twins, Stella and Esther Alphonce. The baby girls are joined at the hip, and the surgeons have little doubt that they can and should be separated, even though the operation carries risks of disability for the twins. Historically conjoined twins who were not, or could not be separated have lived successful lives, even if this involved putting themselves on public display. The original Siamese twins, Chang and Eng Bunker, were joined by a narrow strip of flesh and could easily be separated today.

Like Millie and Christine McCoy, who also lived in the USA in the middle of the last century, they earned fame and fortune touring the world. But life for conjoined twins has never been easy, Millie and Christine were kidnapped and sold several times in their childhood. The British conjoined twin sisters, Violet and Daisy Hilton, provoked a scandal in the USA when one of them tried to get married. They did eventually marry, but they were never separated. The tragedy for conjoined twins who spend their lives together is that they inevitably die together too. When one twin dies, the heart of the other twin keeps pumping until he or she is drained of blood.

Is this another reason why twins should be separated when they are young? There are no simple answers, because every pair of twins is unique.

Further information

Transcript

 

[top gun]

When each and every unborn gets his day in court and the requisite appeals before he is executed, then you will have an argument. Until then, you are just talking about one human being killing another human being without legal consequence for no better reason than convenience.

OK... I'm in such a good mood today I'll post at pale one last time... LoL!

Pale has no problem killing innocent people as long as there's been a trial. And it's a documented fact that trails are often in error. People on death row have been released for being innocent. So it's not the killing that pale has problems with. He's actually fine with the killing. It's the trial thing.

He proposes fetus court.

OHHHHHHHH Lordy, Lordy!

 

[numinus]

Against her will obviously means "she doesn't want to carry & bear a child". There is no mandate that she give over her body to the government because of "circumstances". It's still her body.

Your exercise of privacy is valid only when it DOES NOT HARM ANYONE.

How many more times do I need to repeat this before you give yourself leave to understand, hmmm?

I've already documented this in detail. We do it all the time in a number of situations. You can't pick and choose to bolster your arguement. Women have a right to control their own bodies and anything contained therein.

This simply isn't true.

Presently, this applies only in the first trimester.

I'll take that to mean you understand abortion up to viability is a legal procedure.

That is plain enough.

But like all legal interpretations that does not conform to the requirements of logic, it is simply a matter of time before it is challenged again, and again, and again....

No, I'm saying ALL rape isn't a provable crime and you and I and the government won't be there to know. Only the woman will know.

LMAO

So why are rapists incarcerated in this country, if it ain't proveable, hmmm?

LMAO some more

[/COLOR]Am I to believe you are fine with abortion if the women says she was rapped but can't identify her attacker. I'm betting no. Your view is rape, incest or barnyard sodomy... it doesn't matter. FORCE HER TO HAVE CHILDREN! It's wrong and it's a sad position to take in my opinion. [/COLOR]

See, its not difficult to follow the logic after all. You should try it more often.

What is sad, imo, is that your idea of justice is to kill another human being who had NOTHING, WHATSOEVER to do with the crimes committed.

And again I don't think anyone is trying to deny that after and egg is fertilized it isn't "life". I'm even agreeing the cells were living even before fertilization. None of that makes any difference at all. There is more than one issue at hand here. Up until something can survive on it's own you can't have the government Gestapoing it's way in saying YOU MUST HAVE A CHILD. It's ridiculous not to mention totally unenforceable.

A new born infant cannot survive on its own. Infirm people cannot survive on their own. Everyone, to some extent, cannot survive on their own.

Well I don't want you to be offended "by a word" but viability in relationship to abortion is pretty darn clear IMO. When something can live on it's own without the requirement of a host to incubate it. Yeap... that seems very clear to me.

The word was hijacked to lend an otherwise absurd argument some scientific respectability. That is what's offensive.

That's fine.

The example is "killing" something is allowed in various forms for various reasons. I go back to my initial... The reality is it's not a perfect world. No one's saying anyone should have any abortion. It's saying the woman has standing in personal medical decisions involving her own personal body and not the government. If there were someway to magically extract the fetus and the government wanted to pay for it's total care and upbringing that "might " be something reasonably debatable. But again I'll just say... You can't force someone to be an incubator.

Ditto.

Killing a human being is a form of medical treatment; A human fetus is a virus and woman's body is an incubator.

Against plain stupidity, even god contends in vain.

Well you fly that idea out to the people of America that you want to take the current safe & effective Birth Control Pill away from women and I'll be ecstatically happy with the political results. I'd call the Republican help line and offer that up if I were you. The election is only a few months away.

I suppose one can't expect sheep mentality to comprehend anything outside the popular opinion.

Baaaah

Ah.... but the fact is all executed people are not crimminals are they? It's a "judgement" call.

And being rapped, having incest forced upon you, being forced to endure someone else making you violently & physicall ill, or having the government force you to bear children against you will as some type of Big Brother incubator for the nation... is not conceniece in any sense of the word.

So again... I feel we really are in agreement. Legal in an imperfect world.

State-sanctioned murder has NOTHING to do with justice and EVERYTHING to do with convenience.

It is a stretch of the imagination to think that my arguments is anything similar to yours.

 

[numinus]

He proposes fetus court.

OHHHHHHHH Lordy, Lordy! [/COLOR]

Why the hell not, hmmm?

Courts have been bothered for infinitely less.

And if the judicial system cannot be bothered by the life of the most defenseless member of society, then what the hell is it for, eh?

 

[top gun]

numinus;28893]Your exercise of privacy is valid only when it DOES NOT HARM ANYONE.

How many more times do I need to repeat this before you give yourself leave to understand, hmmm?

Against her will is against her will. It can't be any easier to understand than that. NO FORCED INCUBATION... my friend.

This simply isn't true.

Presently, this applies only in the first trimester.

But it is in fact true and the way it is as we speak. You are arguing what you want. I'm stating what it is.

That is plain enough.

But like all legal interpretations that does not conform to the requirements of logic, it is simply a matter of time before it is challenged again, and again, and again....

I'll await the change but I can tell you that's the last thing you would want.

The women's vote would quickly force Congress to enact safeguards in the law possibly a Constitutional Amendment. Women in this country aren't just going to sit on their hands and say... OK we'll go back to the dark ages. It's 2008 my friend. The Genie has been out of the bottle for way, way to long to ever go back. It's just a HUGE voting block if antagonized by the stripping of this personal and private decision over their own bodies.

LMAO

So why are rapists incarcerated in this country, if it ain't proveable, hmmm?

LMAO some more

Obviously you are not familiar with crime at all if you believe ALL criminals are caught in every crime they commit.

What is sad, imo, is that your idea of justice is to kill another human being who had NOTHING, WHATSOEVER to do with the crimes committed.

That's what I thought. You don't care if they were rapped by their father or not. Inbreeding craziness means nothing to you. It's all about 2 cells on having more rights than the woman. I understand your position totally. I just disagree.

A new born infant cannot survive on its own. Infirm people cannot survive on their own. Everyone, to some extent, cannot survive on their own.

A newborn infant can survive without direct support from any one PARTICULAR individual. Same with infirm people.

Of course if you get to vegetative states and such then even outside life support from multiple means is allowed to be decided one way or the other by next of kin. As it should be.

The word was hijacked to lend an otherwise absurd argument some scientific respectability. That is what's offensive.

Come on... it's a word. It has a meaning. We know what that is.

That's fine.

The example is "killing" something is allowed in various forms for various reasons. I go back to my initial... The reality is it's not a perfect world. No one's saying anyone should have any abortion. It's saying the woman has standing in personal medical decisions involving her own personal body and not the government. If there were someway to magically extract the fetus and the government wanted to pay for it's total care and upbringing that "might " be something reasonably debatable. But again I'll just say... You can't force someone to be an incubator.

Killing a human being is a form of medical treatment; A human fetus is a virus and woman's body is an incubator.

Against plain stupidity, even god contends in vain.

I suppose one can't expect sheep mentality to comprehend anything outside the popular opinion.

Baaaah

I don't know what you're trying to say here except you disagree with me. Something about God and sheep. I'll just let you hold your opinion.

State-sanctioned murder has NOTHING to do with justice and EVERYTHING to do with convenience.

So we are in agreement. Unfortunate but legal in an imperfect world.

 

[top gun]

Why the hell not, hmmm?

Courts have been bothered for infinitely less.

And if the judicial system cannot be bothered by the life of the most defenseless member of society, then what the hell is it for, eh?

Well that's fine. Maybe you can help set that up. It's beyond reality... but in a free country you have a right to beat your head against the wall.

I support that.

 

[numinus]

Against her will is against her will. It can't be any easier to understand than that. NO FORCED INCUBATION... my friend.

It is not the business of government, and society in general, to blow sunshine up anyone's ass just because it's 'against her will'.

The purpose of the political association, law, and their various appendages is PRECISELY to curtail your ABSOLUTE LIBERTY for the COMMON GOOD.

And if you haven't realized this after living in civil society as long as you have, then you are simply beyond any intellectual redemption.

Against her will, indeed!

But it is in fact true and the way it is as we speak. You are arguing what you want. I'm stating what it is.

No.

I am arguing for what is within the realms of LOGIC. You are arguing for what is OUTSIDE LOGIC.

I'll await the change but I can tell you that's the last thing you would want.

The women's vote would quickly force Congress to enact safeguards in the law possibly a Constitutional Amendment. Women in this country aren't just going to sit on their hands and say... OK we'll go back to the dark ages. It's 2008 my friend. The Genie has been out of the bottle for way, way to long to ever go back. It's just a HUGE voting block if antagonized by the stripping of this personal and private decision over their own bodies.

The last thing I would attribute to rational women in general is putting into place an irrational culture that permits such a heinious state of affairs.

Not only are their OWN CHILDREN the victims here, it is MOTHERHOOD that is INHERENT in their gender that stands to be ripped assunder. And with it, the very fabric of society.

Obviously you are not familiar with crime at all if you believe ALL criminals are caught in every crime they commit.

Obviously, you are not familiar with logic if you think this response follows my statements.

That's what I thought. You don't care if they were rapped by their father or not. Inbreeding craziness means nothing to you. It's all about 2 cells on having more rights than the woman. I understand your position totally. I just disagree.

Like this absurdity right here. Where have I said that rape isn't a crime that deserves punishment, hmmm?

You obviously don't have a clue as to the principles on which the legal system rests.

A newborn infant can survive without direct support from any one PARTICULAR individual. Same with infirm people.

Of course if you get to vegetative states and such then even outside life support from multiple means is allowed to be decided one way or the other by next of kin. As it should be.

Nonsense.

Absolute right over an infant or an infirm person can NO MORE be given to the person actually caring for them than their own mother or next of kin.

No one person, or group of people or even the state itself can deprive anyone of LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Capice?

Come on... it's a word. It has a meaning. We know what that is.

You may attach whatever meaning on whatever word to your heart's content BUT it would not make a wit of difference to its logical validity.

Capice?

I don't know what you're trying to say here except you disagree with me. Something about God and sheep. I'll just let you hold your opinion.

You need not berate yourself unnecessarily. I never expected comprehension to dawn on you soon anyway.

Baaaahh

So we are in agreement. Unfortunate but legal in an imperfect world.

It doesn't have to be - as soon as folks like you start employing that gray matter between your ears. It's meant to be used, fyi.

 

[numinus]

Well that's fine. Maybe you can help set that up. It's beyond reality... but in a free country you have a right to beat your head against the wall.

I support that.

What the hell are you talking about?????

Don't you know that the PEOPLE OF THE US, NOT THE FETUS initiates a criminal proceeding????

Or that there is NO statute of limitation for murder?????

It is not enough that you enjoy your freedoms guaranteed by the state - you need to understand how it works, I think.