[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>born.... then at some point the rights of the fetus to exist and   
   >>>>>>>>continue   
   >>>>>>>>exist supersede those of the mother.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Why should the rights of the potential individual exceed the   
   >>>>>>> rights of the existing individual?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Because their existence is no longer a matter of potential but of   
   >>>>>>physical   
   >>>>>>fact.. specifically the point where they could survive outside the   
   >>>>>>mother.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Fine.  Remove it and let someone else take care of it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Sorry, but you are responsible for your offspring. Many well established   
   >>>>court rulings on that matter.   
   >>>   
   >>> There are many ways to give up  a child for adoption.   
   >>   
   >>So that means they weren't aborted. Further until they ARE adopted or   
   >>otherwise legally removed from your custody, they are indeed legally your   
   >>obligation to care for and protect. Your comment only validates what I   
   >>stated above, as it requires LEGAL action to absolve your responsibility   
   >>to   
   >>your child, and until then you are and remain responsible for that child.   
   >>In   
   >>some cases your legal obligations may continue to exist even though you   
   >>don't   
   >>have custody or possession of the child in question.   
   >   
   > I don't argue those points.  However those are all financial   
   > obligations while the woman involved is risking her life and   
   > health up to the point where she isn't.   
      
   Well, it's good to know that no worker deaths ever occur and that there are   
   no issues with workplace safety or health issues.   
      
   I suppose the hand of God just descends and hands him the money?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)