Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 105:
Line 105: + + + + +
Legislators to grant babies the same rights as puppies
Actually, it might be more accurate to say you've invented some arguments. As far as harm is concerned, the disagreements on this page and others are about what the data say. I'd love to see some evidence that anyone, liberal or otherwise, has made the argument that a fetus is just like a tumor or a wart, and can't cause any harm. I'm sure making up arguments from "the other side" is fun but that doesn't make it accurate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:02, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Actually, it might be more accurate to say you've invented some arguments. As far as harm is concerned, the disagreements on this page and others are about what the data say. I'd love to see some evidence that anyone, liberal or otherwise, has made the argument that a fetus is just like a tumor or a wart, and can't cause any harm. I'm sure making up arguments from "the other side" is fun but that doesn't make it accurate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:02, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks, I'm feeling rather inventive this week; see [[User:EdBot]].
:On that note, enjoy this comment:
:* Meanwhile, several state legislatures have ruled that compensation for the negligent death of a pet — due to an auto accident, say, or to a veterinarian's error — need not be limited to the purchase price of the pet, but can be a considerably higher sum. This is based on the understandable belief that a pet is not mere property, but an actual family member. With that in mind a number of state and federal lawmakers have begun to introduce new legislation regarding fetal rights. Their apparent, controversial goal is to create a legal environment in which an unborn human baby enjoys the same legal rights as does a dog. [http://www.nationalreview.com/rice/rice200306160000.asp]