>>which brings me back to this:
>>what rights can a fetus
>>possibly have?!?
>
>the right to live?

not necessarily.....I hold that its the parents' decision
>
>considering that the fetus/child had no
>part in the circumstances of
>it's birth (whatever they migh
>be), is it really okay
>to say "i'mma kill it
>because i want to"?
>
>at the very basic level this
>seems to be the question.

right....I think it is okay (but then again that's up to the parents)

>now where you go from there
>(should the mother be "forced"
>to carry this child against
>her will? does the father
>have any say so? will
>the wrong (killing the child)
>make the circumstances any better?)
>is where the water gets
>all muddy...

very muddy...I think the father should have *some* say so...the mother should not be forced against her will...and this ain't a perfect world so I don't think we are ain the position to apply our "perfect" answers/solutions

>back to "the basic level question",
>if you think SO --
>ive asked this before --
>where is the line where
>your rights/desires as a parent
>are outweighed by the "rights"
>of that child? why eliminate
>this line AFTER birth? what
>if, three months later you
>decide you shouldn't have to
>be "forced" to raise this
>kid, so you put him
>in a dumpster? or what
>happens when they turn 13
>and get all teenage-defiant, is
>it now cool to do
>that oh-not-so-funny bill cosby "i
>brought you in, i'mma take
>you out deal?

I think that viable right-to-life rights occur after birth & from then on....prior to birth-no-there is still a choice (IMO)

>if viability/self-sufficiency is the line then
>does THAT apply in all
>cases too? THAT's where i
>was taking the issue.....

agree with your taking issue....my take is just from the pre-birth standpoint....although there are instances where people have forcibly put the elderly & infirm in "homes" against their will...so that issue is definitely out there in the open




↑ yours

"unadulterated hate, so ugly" - binlahab

™ & ©

*May is Hate Prince Month at OKP*