First they came for the fetus' right to file lawsuit...

Who would file on behalf of the minor -- the state? The father? Someone would have to act as guardian ad litem. It is intriguing, however, to think of babies suing their mothers for damaging behavior they engaged in while pregnant.

LaBolt also provided a brief analysis from Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor who supports Obama.

"Student Obama was acutely attuned to the limits of the judiciary, and of suits between children and their mother, in this sensitive area," Sunstein wrote. "This is a modest and balanced piece that fits easily within the framework of the law at the time."

Duh, Sunstein is totally going to say this. I think I remember hearing he was an advisor to the Obama campaign in addition to his legal academia positions.

This is a modest and balanced piece

good god, obama is in favor of a modest proposal about fetuses. if i've said it once, i've said it a thousand times: barrack HUSSEIN obama wants to eat your babies.

Dog poop

My 7-week-old unborn child of a yet-to-be-determined gender is getting a kick out of these replies.

BABY KILLER!

So it's actually about people who sue their parents after they are born for reckless behavior while in the womb? What an interesting issue.

Allowing a fetus to sue ... not only is it a biatch getting the paperwork in there, but you have to teach them to read and write so they can understand what the hell is going on so they can sign the paperwork. My guess is it wouldn't be a fetus by then. Heck, my youngest fetus is 4 and he can't really read or write. Certainly not enough to file a lawsuit. My oldest fetus probably couldn't do it today at 12. Come to think of it, I've met fetuses of all ages who probably couldn't functionally work in a court of law.

Obama's position I feel is the correct position to take. There is a huge danger in the idea of giving a fetus rights to bring suit against a mother. Primarily because problems associated with the negligent acts of a mother during pregnancy might not become apparent till many years after the actions have been taken.

Currently the courts require that a suit be brought against a person in a reasonable period of time after that plaintiff was harmed by the defendant. For many pre-natal injuries, evidence of the harm is not apparent till many years later, and the courts would have to make exceptions to what constitutes a reasonable period of time to address cases like this. These exceptions would create a special legal risk to mothers that may encourage abortions of unexpected pregnancies rather than risk potential long term legal issues.

This is satire, right?

Code_Archeologist: Currently the courts require that a suit be brought against a person in a reasonable period of time after that plaintiff was harmed by the defendant. For many pre-natal injuries, evidence of the harm is not apparent till many years later, and the courts would have to make exceptions to what constitutes a reasonable period of time to address cases like this.

The Courts (in California at least) already do. For example, California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 allows a minor to commence an action against a health care provider for damages from professional negligence within 3 years of the date of the wrongful act OR, when the minor is under six years old, within 3 years from the date of the accident or prior to his eighth birthday, whichever provides for a longer period.

The law already has these extensions built into the statute of limitations in many limited circumstances.

KaponoFor3: The Courts (in California at least) already do. For example, California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 allows a minor to commence an action against a health care provider for damages from professional negligence within 3 years of the date of the wrongful act OR, when the minor is under six years old, within 3 years from the date of the accident or prior to his eighth birthday, whichever provides for a longer period.

The law already has these extensions built into the statute of limitations in many limited circumstances.

also notable are the long windows available in most states for victims of childhood sexual abuse to file claims

The largest number of abortions are performed where laws regarding abortion, marriage, and everything related are most strict. These people have misunderstood the nature of society itself.

His article acknowledged a public interest in the health of the fetus, but also seemed to demonstrate his continuing commitment to abortion rights, and suggested that the government may have more important concerns than "ensuring that any particular fetus is born."

An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun... Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life. ~ Planned Parenthood "Plan Your Children" pamphlet in 1963.

murder: killing an innocent person when you have the ability not to kill that person.

person: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection. The only reason to suggest ANY other definition is to justify killing other people.

child: a person with 2 parents

abortion = child murder

Victims? Don't be melodramatic. Look down there. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you 20,000 pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money? Or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man, free of income tax. The only way you can save money nowadays. ~ Harry Lime

Everyone who ever bought a pack of condoms knows when life begins. ~ Peggy Noonan

Bevets: Everyone who ever bought a pack of condoms knows when life begins. ~ Peggy Noonan

That's hilarious, I'd never heard that quote before actually.

Bevets: abortion = child murder

The fun is about to start.

And now Bevets is just posting the exact same posts spaced a week apart.

Thanks for your brilliant input!

I am against abortion, except certain extreme cases where it should be retroactively applied. Bevets.

The case at issue in Stallman, though, was an interesting one. According to Obama's footnotes, the child's mother, Bari Stallman was involved in a car accident in 1981 with a Clarence Youngquist. Her daughter, Lindsey, was born with severe injuries from the wreck, and so Stallman's husband, acting for the baby, sued both his wife and Youngquist for negligence, hoping to recover damages from their insurance companies.

What a douchebag.

After a series of court rulings and reversals, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the fetus doesn't have the right to sue its mother. The court warned that allowing a fetus to sue its mother could make them "legal adversaries from the moment of conception until birth."

Yeah... Makes sense. Sometimes the law has to be pragmatic, whatever your personal beliefs are.

human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection. The only reason to suggest ANY other definition is to justify killing other people.



Please explain with reference to fragile X syndrome.

You know, I was going to entertain everyone by ripping the obvious inconsistencies in Bevets' post, but then I thought, why should I argue with a brick wall.

Bevets: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection.

So if I take a chicken fetus inject it with some "unique human chromosome" I've got a person/person-to-be?

zeph`: So if I take a chicken fetus inject it with some "unique human chromosome" I've got a person/person-to-be?

i think you've got soylant kfc

Just once I'd like to see the "life begins at conception" morons (welcome back, Bevets!) be honest about the entire thing from a scientific standpoint. If you believe that life begins at conception, then you must be against in-vitro fertilization, the inter-uterine device, and the birth control pill. IVF "wastes" dozens of fertilized egg for each one that implants, and the IUD and the pill both prevent pregnancy by preventing implantation, not fertilization. Of course, there's also the very natural prospect of fertilized eggs regularly simply not implanting.

Any sort of distinction of time after fertilization would eliminate the scientific inconsistencies of "life begins at conception," but until then the vast majority of Americans are "abortionists."

Let's see some honesty, and have these guys fight the pill and the IUD. Or let's see some realism and admit that zygotes aren't living humans until a certain point, due to both technology and our own reproductive mechanisms.

I'd love to see an anti-choice zealot answer these questions, so I can stop saying "uterine wall" fifteen times in every abortion thread.

GAT_00: You know, I was going to entertain everyone by ripping the obvious inconsistencies in Bevets' post, but then I thought, why should I argue with a brick wall.

You should find the thread where he posted the exact same thing from last week and just copy/paste the 2 hours of comments that people made in responding to him.

bulldg4life: You should find the thread where he posted the exact same thing from last week and just copy/paste the 2 hours of comments that people made in responding to him.

He didn't even bother changing the order up? That's just a poor showing. People, if you are going to troll, at least don't post the same damn thing twice.

Theaetetus: Yeah... Makes sense. Sometimes the law has to be pragmatic, whatever your personal beliefs are.

THIS. One of the issues of creating and voting for laws is not simply what the law itself means, but what issues it could bring up in the judicial system. A law, if upheld, that can set a much greater precedent unintentionally later down the line, shouldn't be passed even if the law itself might have a good outcome.

GAT_00: bulldg4life: You should find the thread where he posted the exact same thing from last week and just copy/paste the 2 hours of comments that people made in responding to him.

He didn't even bother changing the order up? That's just a poor showing. People, if you are going to troll, at least don't post the same damn thing twice.

It's Bevets. That's Bevetsian style. Copying and pasting again and again the same out of context quotes with links to his crazy web site. He's done it so much it's become his own genre.

thomps: i think you've got soylant kfc

zeph`bevets: Murder!

zeph`: zeph`bevets: Murder!

Fark's been eating my HTML lately. Sigh.

Barak believes that if you go in for an abortion (partial birth), and the abortion fails in its goal - leaving you with a breathing premature baby, that no medical help should be rendered for that poor child. He wants the doctors to turn their backs on the child that is most likely struggling to keep breathing and leave it to die. Even if it takes hours. A very potentially viable child.

I'm sorry, but I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who believes that. For me, that is completely unacceptable. I can't even wrap my mind around that.

Satan_Sunburn: I'm sorry, but I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who believes that. For me, that is completely unacceptable. I can't even wrap my mind around that.

At what point in time where you ever going to vote for Barack Obama?

Satan_Sunburn: Barak believes that if you go in for an abortion (partial birth), and the abortion fails in its goal - leaving you with a breathing premature baby, that no medical help should be rendered for that poor child. He wants the doctors to turn their backs on the child that is most likely struggling to keep breathing and leave it to die. Even if it takes hours. A very potentially viable child.

I'm sorry, but I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who believes that. For me, that is completely unacceptable. I can't even wrap my mind around that.

You weren't going to vote for him anyway.

As for that vote, I'd like to see some real, fairly nonbiased reporting on the bill. Every account I've heard about that vote has been from some far right-wing site that heavily editorializes it, and I'd like to see just what the bill said. It might have been the case that, as Theaetetus and I pointed out, it could have led to legal problems and awkward precedent down the line.

bulldg4life: At what point in time where you ever going to vote for Barack Obama?

Well, given that this has been his stand since before he began his candidacy...

/that question kind of answers itself, doesn't it

Satan_Sunburn: Well, given that this has been his stand since before he began his candidacy...

/that question kind of answers itself, doesn't it

Yep, you're a concern troll.

Satan_Sunburn

I don't remember how this came to be the case but I have you farkied as "deliberately appears retarded, possibly acting out owing to childhood abuse by clever person".

Theaetetus:

Meh, whatever. I just wanted to put that out there. I think for a lot of people it will potentially be a deal breaker.

Bevets [TotalFark] Quote 2008-08-18 08:26:22 AM
Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun... Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life. ~ Planned Parenthood "Plan Your Children" pamphlet in 1963.

murder: killing an innocent person when you have the ability not to kill that person.

person: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection. The only reason to suggest ANY other definition is to justify killing other people.

child: a person with 2 parents

abortion = child murder

Victims? Don't be melodramatic. Look down there. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you 20,000 pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money? Or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man, free of income tax. The only way you can save money nowadays. ~ Harry Lime

Read here, instead of having the same discussion! ^{(^)}

Satan_Sunburn: /that question kind of answers itself, doesn't it

It says that you were never going to vote for him, but you are sensationalizing a single bill in an attempt to skew his view and change someone's mind.

Meh, whatever. I just wanted to put that out there. I think for a lot of people it will potentially be a deal breaker.

And, a lot of people will also see that you are making dumbass statements that are incredibly biased in the view of this bill and, hopefully, they'll realize that it amounts to your usual level of braindead tripe that adds nothing to a conversation.

Satan_Sunburn: I'm sorry, but I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who believes that. For me, that is completely unacceptable.



"God, I admire you."

Did you know that John McCain is a racist that is against the celebration of Martin Luther King Jr.?

He is also an ex-con that spent nearly 6 years in prison in the late 60s.

He is also a corrupt politician that has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars to take certain political stances including (but not limited to): his views in the Georgia/Russia conflict and his view of energy deregulation concerning the Enron loophole.

He also disrupted a federal investigation because the guy being investigated just happened to be someone that donated money to his senate campaign.

I'm sorry, but I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who believes that. For me, that is completely unacceptable. I can't even wrap my mind around that.

I just wanted to put that out there. I think for a lot of people it will potentially be a deal breaker.

Bloody William: If you believe that life begins at conception, then you must be against in-vitro fertilization, the inter-uterine device, and the birth control pill. IVF "wastes" dozens of fertilized egg for each one that implants...

The "wasted" embryos aren't killed outright, they're frozen.

This allows the parents to conveniently ignore the fact that well, yeah, eventually most of them are destined for the scrap heap (and heaven forbid you suggest that maybe before burning them you might want to take some stem cells out).

Google around "snowflake babies" and you can see there are places urging people to adopt these embryos, but it's not really a viable (heh) solution for the magnitude of the problem.

But... short version, in the freezer, out of sight, out of mind, people just "store" them and just forget, without having to think they're killing.

Satan_Sunburn: Meh, whatever. I just wanted to put that out there. I think for a lot of people it will potentially be a deal breaker.

Dude, you're totally concern trolling. "Just wanted to put that out there"? Come on!
Who are you working for? Which PAC, or which office?

I've now got you farky'd as "Satan_Sunburn: astroturfer"

Bloody William: It might have been the case that, as Theaetetus and I pointed out, it could have led to legal problems and awkward precedent down the line.

That's basically it. Supposedly the federal one had language in it specifically stating that the bill COULD NOT be used as evidence to claim that abortions are now illegal, while the state bill didn't have that clause.

Of course the state bill didn't, because the whole POINT of those bills is to make an end run around legal abortion. The holy grail is to get a law passed that will conflict with Roe v. Wade enough to get the main issue back into the Supreme Court.

Say what you will about Obama, but he's not stupid enough not to recognize this same old tired ploy.

itazurakko: Bloody William: It might have been the case that, as Theaetetus and I pointed out, it could have led to legal problems and awkward precedent down the line.

That's basically it. Supposedly the federal one had language in it specifically stating that the bill COULD NOT be used as evidence to claim that abortions are now illegal, while the state bill didn't have that clause.

Of course the state bill didn't, because the whole POINT of those bills is to make an end run around legal abortion. The holy grail is to get a law passed that will conflict with Roe v. Wade enough to get the main issue back into the Supreme Court.

Say what you will about Obama, but he's not stupid enough not to recognize this same old tired ploy.

Satan_Sunburn clearly is, though. That, or he's just being disingenuous.

Bloody William: Satan_Sunburn clearly is, though.

Nah, I don't think he's stupid, I think he's a paid astroturfer. We saw a bunch of them in 2004 in the run up to the election, and we saw a bunch of people disappear in early 2005. TGOT, for instance.

Bloody William: Satan_Sunburn clearly is, though. That, or he's just being disingenuous.

Dishonesty on the internet? Surely you jest, good sir.

Bevets: The only reason to suggest ANY other definition is to justify killing other people.

And again, wrong: I consider your definition of "person" to be speciesist.

Theaetetus: TGOT, for instance.

I thought he got perma-banned. And, for something that is completely unrelated to being willfully dishonest in political discussions.

As for this year, if McCain wins...there will be many accounts that won't post anymore. If Obama wins, they will have four whole years to be concerned independents.