At 10:11 AM 5/18/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: >However, I could find similar copies of the bill. This exception >suffers from several flaws. It is limited to situations where the >woman's life is endangered by a "physical disorder, illness or >injury." This language excludes some life-threatening situations by >enumerating others.
Which such life-threatening situations are not covered by "physical disorder, illness or injury"? >> But, why do you not want to get involved in protecting the inalienable >> rights of children from violations by their parents? > >Because this is a matter between a woman and her doctor? Aren't you forgetting someone? Let's rephrase your question for another era in American history: "Why do you want to get the government involved in a person's disposition of his own private property?" Slavery, after all, was explicitly protected by the Constitution (unlike abortion), and we had Supreme Court rulings affirming that slaves were property. So, why would you want to get the government involved in a person's disposition of his own property? If you are willing to believe that a slave is property, that logic makes perfect sense. Just as if you are willing to believe to children are property until they exit the bodies of their mothers, and therfore can be disposed of by the mother as she sees fit, then your logic probably makes sense to you. >The Catholic Church has it that every sperm is sacred. This is a false statement. I am quite familiar with Catholic teaching, and I do not believe that you can find a single Church document supporting that position. Indeed, the above statement is borderline offensive, as "sacred" is a very important concept in our religion. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
