Reply to thread

Mine is based sqarely in sceince and the law and any review of my previous posts will make it obvious.




Claiming that the opposition is making a religious argument when it is not makes even more of a mockery of the subject.  If you are unable to argue your opponent's position based on what it actually is without suggesting that it is religious in nature when clearly it isn't, why even bother?



 


Would you feel that it was your position to pass judgement on a woman who killed her 3 year old, her two year old and her newborn infant because she decided that raising kids just wasn't for her?




The courts are not qualified to determine what is and isn't a living human being, or what is and isn't a living member of any species.  When a new species is discovered in the rain forest, do you believe that they bring it to the courts to determine what it is?  Determining what is and isn't alive, and what it is is a matter of science, not law.  And viability is not what makes you a human being.  If that were true, anyone needing life support to sustain their lives could simply be killed because they would be no longer human beings.


Back
Top