Re: Future of abortion rights

Thread View: triangle.politics

1 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

1 total messages Started by Scott Chilcote Wed, 04 Dec 1996 00:00

#74

Author: Scott Chilcote
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 00:00

20 lines
1787 bytes

On 24 Nov 1996 17:42:45 -0500, George Greene <greeneg@baldhead.cs.unc.edu> put forth:
>It doesn't need an amendment.  All it would need would be for
>5 Supreme Court justices to insist that a fetus is a person.

This looks like another grand legal muddle.  The legal system would either
have to redefine the term "Involuntary Manslaughter" -- a serious crime --
or women would have to stop having miscarriages somehow.  Their bodies would
be callously shredding millions of as yet unborn people every year.  

Back to our regularly scheduled disorder...

                                                  Scott Chilcote
                                                  scotty@pagesz.net
-- 
,____________________________________________________________________________,
||Disclaimer: These opinions / LINUX:\\    "/^\|^\ /\  |\ /|   is not a     ||
|| are my own.  Sales have //  Where  \\    `-.|_//__\ | V |    family      ||
|| been down lately.     // Freedom Isn't\\ \_/| /    \|   |    value!"     ||
`-------------------------==> Virtual! <==-----------------------------------'

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads