soc.women

John D. Wentzky wrote:

> "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
> news: @ ...
>
>>John D. Wentzky wrote:
>>
>>>"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
>>>news: @ ...
>>>
>>>>John D. Wentzky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Vandar" wrote in message
>>>>>news: $ @ ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>R. Steve Walz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Vandar wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>R. Steve Walz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Vandar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>R. Steve Walz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Vandar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>R. Steve Walz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>beavis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If abortion does not kill a baby then why is killing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>pregnant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>woman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>double murder??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>----------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>It isn't. It's regarded as a crime against the mother. Only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>uneducated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>slobbering hooting nincompoops call it "double-murder", the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>law
>>>>>>>>>>>>>does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>NOT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /trials/peterson/
>>>>>>>>>>>>I guess those at CourtTV are "slobbering hooting nincompoops".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>California Penal Code Section 187
>>>>>>>>>>>>(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
>>>>>>>>>>>>fetus, with malice aforethought.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>-----------------
>>>>>>>>>>>More legalistic nonsense. The SCotUS says it isn't, and as I
>>>>>>>>>>>recall,
>>>>>>>>>>>that is the Law of the Land.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The SCOTUS does not define murder and is not the law of the land.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>----------------
>>>>>>>>>I can't really help that you're obviously uneducated and
>>>>>>>>>illiterate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The Constitution is the law of the land, Einstein. The SCOTUS
>>>>>>>>doesn't
>>>>>>>>make law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-------------
>>>>>>>The SCotUS INTERPRETS the Constitution, and is the SOLE
>>>>>>>interpreter!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All you need to do now is point out where murder is defined in the
>>>>>>Constitution.
>>>>>>Since it isn't, the SCOTUS does NOT say murder doesn't include a
>>>>>>fetus.
>>>>>>States define such things and California has defined the unlawful
>>>>>>killing
>>>>>>of a fetus, with malice aforethought, to be murder.
>>>>>>The SCOTUS doesn't factor into that in any way.
>>>>>
>>>>>LOL!
>>>>>How about that 4th Amendment that GUARANTEES SAFETY AND SECURITY IN
>>>>>ONE'S
>>>>>PERSON?
>>>>
>>>>-----------------
>>>>IF you're a human being, fetuses are not.
>>>
>>>Look. It isn't me who is clinging to some ignorant, negligent excuse that
>>>acts as if persons who are in utero are not persons.
>>
>>---------------
>>Gee, I'm not either, that leaves you again, asswipe.
>
>
> Bullshit.
>
>
>>Fetuses are NOT persons.
>
>
> Kangaroo fetuses?
> LOL!
> You are dead wrong if you mean that human fetuses are not persons.
>
>
>>If we ever were fetuses we'd remember it.
>
>
> I remember it, you idiot.
> I was a fetus before I was born.
>
>
>>Since we don't, WE WEREN'T!!
>
>
> Bullshit, you fool.
> Every time you go to sleep you are obviously NOT a person by that logic.

Anyone who is born, human, and alive is a person. Their state of
consciousness is irrelevant.