Oil depletion allowance

[kimba1]

hmm

still using guilt and not willing to deal with cause on this subject.
this may never end.

[sirs]

Actually, it's dead on target

[Plane]

The target of the rifleman is not a part of the rifleman's body. Your example is simply bogus.

  I wasn't trying to avoid bogus.

  Neither are you , the child has a right to preserve his own life , which can be presumed he would like to do.

    To say that a person has a right to own his own body , includeing someone eleses is so bogus I am haveing a hard time makeing an example of something equally bogus.

[Plane]

hmm

still using guilt and not willing to deal with cause on this subject.
this may never end.

  I think it possible that he will come around eventually.

    If he does not , then the issue will be quite well explored from both directions , which is a value  of itself.

[sirs]

The target of the rifleman is not a part of the rifleman's body. Your example is simply bogus.

  I wasn't trying to avoid bogus.

  Neither are you , the child has a right to preserve his own life , which can be presumed he would like to do.

    To say that a person has a right to own his own body , includeing someone eleses is so bogus I am haveing a hard time makeing an example of something equally bogus.

Touche', Plane

[Xavier_Onassis]

A fetus is part of someone else's body until birth.

And that someone else is the owner of said body.

[Plane]

A fetus is part of someone else's body until birth.

And that someone else is the owner of said body.

I see your statement , but I don't see science or logic behind it , it is just a bald statement of your opinion.

If one person can own another, and it is no big deal, what were all those Yankees so upset about in 1864?

[kimba1]

too ways to look at this.

hows this as a solution guilt-free surrendering of the child for adoption.

[Plane]

too ways to look at this.

hows this as a solution guilt-free surrendering of the child for adoption.

I like it fine.

What more should be done to make adoption easyer and safer?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I have nothing against adoptions at all. I simply do not believe that a woman should be forced to have a child if she does not wish to. We do not force people to get liposuction or nose jobs or even dentures.

[kimba1]

force-no

coerced- possible

15 years of everybody saying it`s great to have a baby and when you do. things change quick

[Plane]

I have nothing against adoptions at all. I simply do not believe that a woman should be forced to have a child if she does not wish to. We do not force people to get liposuction or nose jobs or even dentures.

   I don't think that any women should be forced into pregnancy , and no persons should be killed lightly, without due process .

[BT]

no persons should be killed lightly, without due process .

The problem is defining when a fetus becomes a person.

The courts say when the fetus is viable.

Religions mostly say it is at conception.

The question then becomes are we ruled by law or religion.

If by law and abortions are legal up to the point of viability, how do you rarify the legal procedures.

One way is to make the choice of carrying to term more advantageous and convenient than aborting.

Financial incentives might do the trick either with rewarding delivery and taxing non delivery.

The rewarding can be handled by the pro life folks, the taxing can be done by the state.


 

[Plane]

  I am only quibbleing with you BT , but why doesn't science say that a person is a person for the whole of its lifespan?

What the law says it says without reason?

An important step has been skipped or gotten wrong , same thing as with the Dread Scott decision.

It was clear that reguarding Black people as persons under the law would be ruinous to the economy , unfair to their owners and entitle them to obvioulsly rediculous rights like gun ownership, so lets not reguard them as persons because this solves so many problems.

If there is not a real reason to reguard a baby as a person at a particular age and not another I have yet to see a convinceing case based on religion, or science.

Baseing the decision of whether to protect a persons rights on the economic impact of the decision just isn't seeking the truth, nor is considering the impact on any other person of the decision.

Either we respect human life , or we have qualified respect for human life as we find it convienent.

[sirs]

no persons should be killed lightly, without due process .

The problem is defining when a fetus becomes a person.

The courts say when the fetus is viable.

And viable is at least 25weeks.  The earliest I recall was 21, but 25 is definately viable.  Not religiously, but biologically, factually, literally

Religions mostly say it is at conception.

The question then becomes are we ruled by law or religion.

So, if we are ruled by law, and viability can begin as early as 21, but definately by 25................is that not now a person, as defined by law?