Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (144410)	10/31/2008 12:48:40 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

the food argument falls into the "cruel and unusual punishment" angle, so it is not the same case as the bone marrow. The bone marrow is a gift of life from one person to another, and no, we do not prosecute a parent who refuses. Check it out if you want. The fetus situation is the same as the bone marrow, NOT FOOD. Now within this framework cruel and unusual still applies towards specific PROCEDURES and that is why the partial birth thing works. But to prove cruel and unusual requires intellect and perception which is a hard case to make about a 3 mos old fetus. This is why these cases never make it to the supreme court. The only thing that makes it to the SCOTUS is the edge stuff... consent and specific procedures. The human rights issue and violating one rights for another won't fly.... Roberts knows it, and doesn't take those cases. We now have a chief justice who is pro life- don't you think he would try to topple Roe V Wade if he could? LOL!