[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The laws in effect under RvW took that into account.  Any   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws defining the killing of a fetus as murder   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excluded a woman getting an abortion.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Which only proves my point.. otherwise why would an   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>exclusionary   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>condition   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>be necessary?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That point was address in the part you clipped:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Under your scenario the local laws could define that act as   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> murder.  It would be murder because it was legally defined   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as murder without addressing the "unborn human" issue. Local   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws can define the killing of a dog as murder, and if the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law survived court scrutiny it would be valid."   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>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.   
      
   No, I'm just asking a question.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)