Re: Freeman Dyson on heresy

John Larkin snipped-for-privacy@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com posted to sci.electronics.design:

Again confusing and conflating a post partum infant with earlier stages of development.

krw wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.individual.net:

the patient and doctor will determine that.

You are ignoring medical problems such as anencephalic "babies". Little or no brain left,would not live on it's own. there are other severe problem cases,too.

And the Docs "kill" in the birth canal because of the way the current laws are. Once born,they are not allowed to terminate the baby,no matter what is wrong with it.

As I said,between the doctor and their patient;none of my business,and none of yours.

MYOB.

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Under current law,one becomes a legal "person" at BIRTH. That is when the birth certificate for that person is issued. A fetus is only a *potential* person;they have to survive outside the womb. They also have to have a brain,anencephalic fetuses do not qualify.

If it's a year after delivery?

You're not trying to save the life of the mother now. You're shifting the goal posts.

OK, at least you're admitting to murder, not pretending it's necessary for the mother.

The sanctity of life is my business. It is yours too, as you admitted above. You're simply being hypocritical in your contempt for the unborn.

Not true. Ever hear of people being tried for the murder of a fetus?

krw wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.individual.net:

I think -you- are trying to.

I'm not "admitting" anything. I'm saying that is the way the laws are currently constructed.

Of your own life.You have no business intruding in the lives of others.

UNborn can = neverborn. You are just trying to force your beliefs on everybody.

krw wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.individual.net:

Yes.Not a "baby",but a FETUS. Thus,different rules.

Nope. You were justifying "late-term" abortion as being medically necessary. Now you're justifying murder because the unborn is "defective", under the same banner.

Then you *are* admitting that you approve of fraud to committ murder, if only because you disagree with the law.

I certainly do! Murder is all of our business!

Too true. This is particularly true when they're murdered.

You haven't a clue what my beliefs are. You're simply justifying murder because life is inconvenient. Yes, that *is* my business.

Read my fingers. I said "murder of a fetus".

Read his writing, idiot. "Thus, different rules."

Is it possible to be even more uninformed?

robert

Wild, ignorant guessing would result in being right roughly 50% of the time. But he's wrong 100% of the time, which takes real effort.

You've got to admire that passion for public humiliation.

John

So she can kill her kid before the birth certificate is signed? How convenient.

John

While I personally find abortion reprehensible, it _is_ legal; and I support women's rights to it.

...Jim Thompson

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

This sums up the level of anti-abortion folks;the wacky ideas they jump to,so far from reality. It's not really that different than the anti-gun crowd's weird thoughts.

that's basically my position,too.

"Acme Abortion Service;no fetus can beat us" "City Morgue;you stab 'em,we slab 'em."

In light of recent news, should a person be allowed to kill his own dog? And if so, by what means?

Not different rules, AlwaysWrong.

Are you here in AZ? (Where a police officer left his "officer" dog in a car unattended for enough hours to kill it :-(

...Jim Thompson

"The family of Laci Peterson Wednesday endorsed a bill being introduced on Capitol Hill that would allow a violent crime against a pregnant woman to be treated as crimes against two separate people."

"Currently, 26 states have similar laws on the books and 24 states do not."

"California has such a law and Scott Peterson already has been charged with two murders in that case."

The distinction seems to be gone with this type of law.