"GeekBoy" <nerd_revenge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:0TAwk.19293$LG4.6190@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "FACE" <AFaceInTheCrowd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:i0d3c4lpudc0u2nkob3o3kf1mk4etjuai9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:04:30 -0500 in alt.politics.immigration,
"GeekBoy"
>> <geekboy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> in glistered weave wrote large for all to see:
>>
>>>
>>>"klunk" <klunk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:VUhwk.147990$nD.71496@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> "FACE" <AFaceInTheCrowd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:8983c4p7fkq1p075rdp35kbt3jirj53jq5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In this country, in the last 20 or so years, it has become pretty
>>>>> standard
>>>>> in most States to charge double-murder to a killer of a pregnant
>>>>> woman.
>>>>> It generally seems to be re****ted as the murder of her "unborn
child".
>>>>>
>>>>> These laws were passed by blue states and red states........arguably
>>>>> the
>>>>> most liberal state is Massachusetts, yet --
>>>>>
>>>>> "Massachusetts: The killing of an unborn child after viability is
>>>>> vehicular
>>>>> homicide. Commonwealth v. Cass, 467 N.E.2d 1324 (Mass. 1984). The
>>>>> killing
>>>>> of
>>>>> an unborn child after viability is involuntary manslaughter.
>>>>> Commonwealth
>>>>> v.
>>>>> Lawrence, 536 N.E.2d 571 (Mass. 1989)."
>>>>> or, another example of a liberal state:
>>>>> "California: The killing of an unborn child after the embryonic
stage
>>>>> is
>>>>> murder. Cal. Pen. Code ' 187(a) (West 1999)."
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet.......... At the same time, liberal men and women are
constantly
>>>>> telling me that this "unborn child" for which a charge of "murder"
is
>>>>> to
>>>>> be
>>>>> lodged if its incubator is shut off, is "just a lump of cells" with
no
>>>>> human
>>>>> rights. A leader of liberals says that the point of "viability" is
>>>>> "above
>>>>> his pay grade" but goes for abortions not only until birth but also
>>>>> for
>>>>> murdering the living child if it survives.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does all this work into a logical stance?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FACE
>>>>
>>>> i can tell you that the neocons in canada recently tried to forward a
>>>> bill
>>>> that would accomplish the same thing as you've just described and it
>>>> was
>>>> handily slapped down before it got any traction... and even the
>>>> anti-abortion prime minister has been steering away from it because
>>>> he's
>>>> afraid of alienating a such a significant block of voters...
>>>> personally...
>>>> i think the only reason that such laws do pass in the states is
because
>>>> there is clearly a much larger body of sup****t for eliminating
sup****t
>>>> for
>>>> abortions... palin, for example is against abortions even in cases
>>>> where
>>>> rape is involved... clearly, such a position would never allow
someone
>>>> to
>>>> gain any sort of power in canada in the first place... perhaps you
guys
>>>> just need your own version of a henry morgentaller to sacrifice his
>>>> life
>>>> toward the very worthy cause of sup****ting a woman's right to choose
>>>> what
>>>> is right for themselves...
>>>>
>>>
>>>What a guys rights?
>>> ****ing Hypocrites. If a woman does it they call it "abortion," but if
a
>>>guy does it they call it murder.
>>>
>>
>> Once upon a midnight dreary I read that in ancient Rome, either parent
>> had
>> life/death power over their children until they were fourteen.
>>
>
> Ahh...the good ol days
ahhh.... this explains your other post to me... ;-)
>
>> You do have a point..............
>>
>>
>> FACE
>
|
