XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics   
   XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama   
   XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,    
   lt.politics.trump   
   XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars   
   XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,   
   alt.politics.guns, alt.society.liberalism   
   XPost: alt.atheism   
   From: noway@nospam.com   
      
   On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 12:37:12 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty   
    scrawled in blood:   
      
   >On 7/2/22 5:24 PM, Don Kresch wrote:   
   >> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 14:41:06 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty   
   >>  scrawled in blood:   
   >>   
   >>> On 7/2/22 11:13 AM, Somebody too wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>> Under no other conditions does this requirement exist.   
   >>>   
   >>> I say it does, you can't kill a person because they make your life   
   >>> inconvenient.   
   >>   
   >> 	Lovely strawman.   
   >>   
   >> 	   
   >>> You have to feed your baby after you give birth   
   >>   
   >> 	No, you don't. You can give up the custodianship.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Yes   
      
   	No, you don't. You can give up the custodianship. Seriously:   
   this is how reality works.   
      
   >you do because if you give-up the parental roll you are no longer   
   >able to call it your baby.   
      
   	Yeah, you are, from a genetics point of view.   
      
   	Ooooooooooooooooooh, that just flew by your head, didn't it.   
      
      
   >>   
   >>>>> If a fetus is not a person she has a medical condition that   
   >>>>> is easily remedied.   
   >>>   
   >>> How was that medical condition created?   
   >>   
   >> 	How was a broken bone playing football created?   
   >   
   >Accidental or by force by other players. Could be either way, who chose   
   >for you to play the game?   
      
   	That's not actually relevant.   
      
   >   
   >Were you forced to be there? Are the injuries life threatening, is there   
   >a reason to risk surgery to improve the outcome? What if the Doctor says   
   >I can go in and grind on the bone and do multiple surgeries on that bone   
   >to fit it back to be the same and add more bone where it is too   
   >splintered but you'll never throw a ball again and I'll have to take the   
   >piece of bone from your leg which will weaken the leg bone.   
      
   	None of that is relevant.   
      
   >   
   >What you have is a lot of risk and the broken bone can never be   
   >"unbroken" so it will always be too weak to perform at 100% for sports.   
      
   	Not relevant.   
      
   	Want to know what is relevant?   
      
   	My self-ownership.   
      
   >Like a woman trying to undo a pregnancy, it may solve some issued like   
   >feeding a baby and create others and the woman did make the decision to   
   >play the game, and if she didn't then that's a crime and time for prison   
   >for someone but killing a baby doesn't make the crime go away or reverse   
   >the broken persons injuries.   
      
   	It's an eviction. Or don't you believe in property rights.   
      
   	Oh, looks like you don't believe in property rights.   
      
   	Communist.   
      
      
   >>   
   >> 	Are you going to be consistent and say that no sports injuries   
   >> can be fixed? Because if you don't say that: you're a hypocrite.   
   >   
   >I got to this point and see I was consistent   
      
   	Nope, you were a hypocrite.   
      
      
   Don   
   aa#51   
   o- DNRC   
   Jedi Slackmaster   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)