ScottyRo

You\'re gonna have to tell me when that is because I think it is well after birth when a child becomes old enough to even begin doing things for itself. If it can\'t survive on its own, just kill it, huh?

You know, that BABY BABY BABY has a BODY BODY BODY of its OWN OWN OWN too. What I dion\'t understand is how you can be so passionately against the only completely innocent person in the mix.

And don\'t use the when life begins thing either because you can\'t say for sure that it is not alive at conception. Why must my side be the side that proves it? Seems like the fairest thing to do is err on the side of it being a life at conception until proven otherwise.

Why do think the death penalty is tied to a \"beyond a reasonable doubt\" standard? Because it errs on the side of caution. We want to be a sure as possible before killing a human. But YOU are in favor of abandoning this standard when it comes to abortion simply because some woman, whose situation I might not entirely know, doesn\'t want the nine month or so problem of having a baby. That, my friend, seems off to me and I\'d really like to know why you feel it should be different.

You\'ve already admitted that you cannot say that you do not have doubts about whether the child is alive at conception or not.

Do you disagree that the child is giving up more (70+ years on average) than the mother who is forced to give birth to an unwanted child (nine months)?

Lastly, if you want to get all your lawyer friends to jump online and try to thump me on my views about freedom then do it. I feel very strongly that I haven\'t overstated the truth. It doesn\'t take a law degree to understand that your freedom is restricted. ANd it does matter in this discussion because you\'re toting the \"it\'s her right to choose\" banner like it\'d be the first time anyone\'s actions were restricted. I say again that you\'re ignoring the real world situation when you are so indignantly throwing that argument out.

Oh yeah, Shakespeare WAS right about lawyers. I know! :P

saintfan

You guys aren\'t really amazing. You\'d probably like to think so tho. Cut the cord, the baby is now officially alive without the mother. Get it? Try really hard.

No Scotty. I don\'t know. And neither do you, which is why the decision is best left up to the person who is closest to the situation. That person isn\'t you no matter how guilty you might feel about your past. Sorry.

Hey, Mr. Lawyer, the death penalty deals with know living people does it not. You cannot tie the two together in leagle ease no matter what they told you in law school.

Man o Man. The righteous just don\'t get it. EVERYTHING you\'re saying, or shall I say NOTHING your\'e saying or have said is factual Scotty. It\'s that \"beyond a reasonable doubt\" thing they taught you in law school that\'s gonna catch you every time.

Did I now? Where? Either I mis-spoke or you didn\'t read or properly understand something. My biggest supporting argument here is that I DON\"T KNOW if conception is the moment or not. Neither do you. You THINK it is and for whatever reason -- one you won\'t readily admit -- you think you\'re smarter than, oh, EVERYBODY since we\'re not all convinced.

Bottom line boys is it\'s not your decision to make...and it\'s not ever gonne be...deal with it

C'mon Man...

ScottyRo

It\'s that you don\'t know. That means there is a reasonable doubt in your mind that it might be alive at conception. you can\'t say for sure that it\'s not alive. That\'s where you\'ve said it. Give me some compelling reasons why your side shouldn\'t have to prove that it\'s not alive at that point.

And there\'s no reason to get insulting and accuse me of thinking I\'m smarter than everybody else. I\'ve commented on your obvious intelligence more than once. Just because I disagree with you doesn\'t make me holier than thou or arrogant. Are you just mad because I keep pointing out your arguments weaknesses and all you can do is make personal attacks?

You accuse me of not seeing the other side while you do the exact same thing. How is it that your not being self-righteous in your views on this? You\'re the one putting something so fleeting as the right to choose above the right to live of something that very may well be a living child.

Things are not certain to remain as they are now. So you deal with that.

So, it\'s not alive one minute and then it\'s magically alive after you cut the cord? Forget partial birth abortions. Birth the whole thing. Just don\'t cut the cord until you\'ve smashed its head. Yeah, makes sense to me. :casstet:

By your logic, you could break into my house and cut the 8 1/2 month old \"fetus\" out of my wife and throw it away and not be guilty of murder unless my wife dies from your actions. (All the other crimes aside.) You may have a hard time believing this, but that child is as alive to me as much in the womb as she will be when she\'s out. I would think you murdered her regardless of what the law says.

And, of course, it only has a right to live if it is already alive. So, if it\'s not alive at conception, it doesn\'t have a right to a life that certainly will come at some point without your interference or without a natural event preventing it? The mother has some greater right not to be burdened with a pregnancy. Whatever.

You\'re the amazing one.

Go ahead and avoid the issues by telling me none of that applies without backing up why it doesn\'t apply.

saintfan

There you go again, missing the point...on purpose. Stop being a lawyer long enough to have a \"real\" conversation.

Sorry to offend. I know I come across that way, but in typical lawyer fashion you speak of freedom as if you\'re not aware of the fact that most of us are aware that we can\'t yell \"BOMB!\" in an airport. It\'s annoying, and it\'s offensive.

This will go nowhere since you and others like you want to draw the line where YOU see fit. I, on the other hand am thankful to be one of the majority who thinks you and Billy and your like don\'t get to draw that line based on your perception of the way things ought to be. People are different. Our views are different. There is nothing definitive in your argument against a woman\'s right to choose and that\'s where your side falls short...and sadly fails to realize. You can\'t prove when life begins Scotty, so all this legal hubub about this law and that law and the other law is a wash. You KNOW this and yet you continue to reach and grasp for any thing you can in an attempt to prove your point. It\'ll NEVER work...none of it is factual. Think you\'ve proved something here? Take it to court and see how far you get. PS, I hope the judge is a woman!

Ultimately, I\'d rather the \"power\" as it were, be given to the person affected most by the decision, and not you or Billy or Big Brother. That person is the woman considering the abortion. And No, Scotty (and Billy) the fetus is not the \"person\" most affected. It\'s not really a person yet, is it? Well, at least it\'s not yet legally.

C'mon Man...