[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>As I said.. a double standard.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> This entire argument boils down to the question of who has   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> the primary rights when a woman is pregnant, the woman or   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> the fetus/baby/whatever.  A choice must be made as it is an   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> all or nothing situation with no possible compromise which   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies both sides.  The pregnancy is terminated, or it is   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> not.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>Yep, and unless you're going to claim a baby has NO rights until   
   >>>>>>>>>>>after   
   >>>>>>>>>>>being   
   >>>>>>>>>>>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.   
   >>   
   >> Irrelevant.  People drop dead walking down the street.   
   >   
   >Yep, and if we was due to some killing them.. they're probably going to jail   
   >for it.   
   >   
   >> Few workers are required to work at a particular job and   
   >> cannot quit.   
   >   
   >I see, so as long as you're being paid to do it.. that makes murder for hire   
   >legal?   
   >   
   >   
   You are being argumentative.   
      
   --   
      
   Build a Wall.   
   Deport them all.   
      
   Go WOKE.  Go Broke.   
      
   Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),   
   the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,   
   and Social anything.   
      
   Let them DIE.   
      
   Did the last sane person leaving California   
   remember to turn out the lights?  The Rotten   
   Apple?   
      
   Facts are the reality whether or not you   
   want to hear them.   
      
   The most dangerous enemies the United States has:   
      
   Chuckles Harris and her supporters like   
   the Sluts and Pimps including   
   Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,   
   Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman,   
   Cori Bush, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler,   
   Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker.  They   
   have stepped over the line and are working against   
   the country and what it stands for.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)