soc.women

Vandar wrote:
>
> R. Steve Walz 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.
> >>>
> >>>Fetuses are NOT persons.
> >>>If we ever were fetuses we'd remember it.
> >>>Since we don't, WE WEREN'T!!
> >>
> >>I was one year old once. I even have pictures to prove it, but I don't
> >>remember it. Most adults' memories don't go much further back than 5
> >>years old or so.
> >
> > -----------------
> > Experiments in directed memory and hypnosis have revealed that everyone,
> > no matter how poorly they indexed it, possesses memories back to the
> > start of their personhood, at several weeks after birth. These were
> > checked against other family accounts and found to be quite accurate.
> >
> > The adult notion of poor child memory doesn't withstand honest scrutiny.
>
> Yeah... "repressed memories" are real reliable.
------------------
Repressed memories are confabulated or imagined, memories that are
supported by the recollections of family and others are not.

Anyway, if humans really didn't remember their first year, then how
to they remember how they learned to walk or talk?

And if humans really didn't remember their first year, then that is
an even stronger argument in favor of fetuses not being human!!

It suggests that if we had been killed the first year, we would
never have even known it! Thus it wouldn't actually happen to
"anybody".
Steve