re i thought commercial advertising was not allowed in article c sma gk voder nsc com matt galaxy nsc com matt freivald x writes in article in talk politics misc margoli watson ibm com larry margolis writes i would suggest that legal precedent defines a human being i e a person whose rights are protected by the constitution and the law as someone with a functioning brain no if you want to use legal precedent you should take a look at the model penal code on which many states base their criminal code my apologies if i was unclear i was not trying to start a statutory debate since there are many in some cases conflicting statutes on the books i was merely suggesting a paradigm that might make sense for a pro choicer imho cite one of these conflicting statutes you keep making these assertions but you haven t supported any of them yet i am speaking of statutes that conflict with the definition larry posted why did you delete the code that larry posted also the model penal code made perfect sense to me were you perhaps confused by it also i am still looking for your definition the one you used clearly indicates that a fetus is not a human being this is not likely to please either pro lifers or pro choicers but it is pretty clear from the legal medical concept of brain death brain death is a method of deciding when a known person is legally dead there s no analogous concept of brain birth i have just coined it you may object to the paradigm but it would make our treatment of human life statutorily consistent circular arguments are usually very consistent if a parent has the right to choose to not take responsibility for their own child why are there laws and penalties against child abandonment this last question is irrelevant and something of a non sequitur can you establish some relevance or even some sense for it if at some point an unborn child is a human being the parents clearly have the same responsibilities toward her as any other parents have toward their children and no parent can be forced to supply bodily resources toward their children even if necessary to save the child s life there is a confusion here between action and inaction a parent does not have to run out in front of a bus to save their child s life either but a parent is required to feed his children again your desire for consistency disappears when it does not suit your needs the principle of protecting life is abandoned based on action versus inaction not much of a principle suddenly you recognize that the claim on bodily resources is dependent on circumstances other than this principle of life that s a very conevnient principle you have there matt dean kaflowitz
