[donh]

The present law is based off of falsities. It's false in itself. There's no such thing as a mother's right to not be inconvienced (as many abortionists claim).

I take it you exercised my invitation to explain why you wouldn't now be in jail of you did to a woman what a fetus does? "inconvienience" is in the eye of the beholder. Tort harm can be demonstrated with medical records--which a pregnant woman accumulates plenty of.

[Brad’s Gramma]

I take it you exercised my invitation to explain why you wouldn't now be in jail of you did to a woman what a fetus does?

You've mentioned things like this periodically throughout this forum. Why do you feel that it's such an imposition for a woman to have a baby? In general. Not that 13 year old you talk about.

Don, if that's your only (or strongest) argument, you've got to rethink this. Methinks you're a girl who's had a bad experience with pregnancy or knows someone who has? I'm VERY VERY sorry if that's the case.

But, that's not an excuse for killing a child.

[Hajman]

I take it you exercised my invitation to explain why you wouldn't now be in jail of you did to a woman what a fetus does? "inconvienience" is in the eye of the beholder. Tort harm can be demonstrated with medical records--which a pregnant woman accumulates plenty of.

Would you like to explain how in reality I could do what a fetus does? It's an unrealistic situation.

This is not responsive to the thrust of my argument. You claim the woman can't treat the fetus like a wart, and that certain legal officials can therefore interfere by force of arms. Your claim is based on sacred knowledge inaccessable to a skeptical objective observer.

Ok, that was completely incomprehensible. Would you put that into english, please?

The irreconcelable conflict is between the mother's liberty, and the child's life.

The mother's liberty isn't harmed one bit by the child's life. The mother remains free. (Liberty doesn't mean being able to do whatever you want).

-The Hajman-