Point being that law-makers aren't rules lawyers, and in cases where it becomes evident they weren't courts will ignore the RAW and go for the RAI.
Yeah, and [Texas banned marriage].
Point being that law-makers aren't rules lawyers, and in cases where it becomes evident they weren't courts will ignore the RAW and go for the RAI.
Better marriage than sex ;)
A large swath of what should have been an evolutionary dead end in the gene pool will actually be such!
Stupid will be removed somewhat hooray!
Wait Florida banned sex.... you know what this means right?
A large swath of what should have been an evolutionary dead end in the gene pool will actually be such!
Stupid will be removed somewhat hooray!
Nah... it still allows for husbandry. I'm sure the next piece of legislation will be about classifying women as livestock.
Wanna bet they'll "rectify" the issue by classifying humans as "not animals"?
If you read closer, the language of the law specifies "persons" and "animals", but fails to understand that "persons" are also "animals." Depending on how a judge chose to look at it, it might or might not hold up in court.
Wanna bet they'll "rectify" the issue by classifying humans as "not animals"?
If you read closer, the language of the law specifies "persons" and "animals", but fails to understand that "persons" are also "animals." Depending on how a judge chose to look at it, it might or might not hold up in court.
Which reminds me. Did you hear about the group that wants to classify embryos as persons?
www.prwatch.org/node/9557
Wanna bet they'll "rectify" the issue by classifying humans as "not animals"?
If you read closer, the language of the law specifies "persons" and "animals", but fails to understand that "persons" are also "animals." Depending on how a judge chose to look at it, it might or might not hold up in court.
Which reminds me. Did you hear about the group that wants to classify embryos as persons?
www.prwatch.org/node/9557
What about them? If you believe that life begins at conception, then what they are trying is very reasonable.
What about them? If you believe that life begins at conception, then what they are trying is very reasonable.
No, not at all.
What about them? If you believe that life begins at conception, then what they are trying is very reasonable.
Because if a fetus is a person, then miscarriages are manslaughter.
What about them? If you believe that life begins at conception, then what they are trying is very reasonable.
Because if a fetus is a person, then miscarriages are manslaughter.
Drinking while pregnant would be considered torture, and medically necessary abortions to save the mother's life would be state sanctioned murder... yeah the list goes on.
But the real important question would be, is a pregnant woman driving in the carpool lane considered one or two persons?
What about them? If you believe that life begins at conception, then what they are trying is very reasonable.
Because if a fetus is a person, then miscarriages are manslaughter.
Not by any law in the US it isn't. Miscarriages would be death by natural causes, UNLESS deliberately caused.
What about them? If you believe that life begins at conception, then what they are trying is very reasonable.
Because if a fetus is a person, then miscarriages are manslaughter.
Drinking while pregnant would be considered torture, and medically necessary abortions to save the mother's life would be state sanctioned murder... yeah the list goes on.
Heh. Not. Your drinking claim is just plain absurd and while there have probably been some put forth, I personally have never seen an abortion bill that didn't include exceptions if the mother's life was in danger.
But the real important question would be, is a pregnant woman driving in the carpool lane considered one or two persons?
I would imagine that it would be two in that State, at least for the 0 days it takes for that bill to be hit with an injuction until it can be struck down.
Heh. Not. Your drinking claim is just plain absurd and while there have probably been some put forth, I personally have never seen an abortion bill that didn't include exceptions if the mother's life was in danger.
Yes, but you are judging by the standard of law that we have now. Currently an embryo is not a person, at least not legally speaking. A person has certain rights that would prohibit a medically necessary abortion from taking place.
But the real important question would be, is a pregnant woman driving in the carpool lane considered one or two persons?
I would imagine that it would be two in that State, at least for the 0 days it takes for that bill to be hit with an injuction until it can be struck down.
This isn't the first time they tried to pass a bill to classify embryos as people. According to an NPR interview I heard a while back1, the bill ran into trouble because of the car pool lane question.
1 - I can't find it at the moment, but when I do, I'll link it up.
Yes, but you are judging by the standard of law that we have now. Currently an embryo is not a person, at least not legally speaking. A person has certain rights that would prohibit a medically necessary abortion from taking place.
True. But I also haven't read that bill, so I can't say one way or the other if provisions were made for exceptional circumstances or specified what was acceptable for a mother to do or not to do.
This isn't the first time they tried to pass a bill to classify embryos as people. According to an NPR interview I heard a while back1, the bill ran into trouble because of the car pool lane question.
LOL That's funny.
Also a link at the bottom of the article has a thing about more details with the bill. The bill supposedly makes a distinction between humans and animals and so with regards to the bill humans are not animals.
True. But I also haven't read that bill, so I can't say one way or the other if provisions were made for exceptional circumstances or specified what was acceptable for a mother to do or not to do.
I don't think this group took exceptional circumstances into consideration. The main guy said during the NPR interview that their purpose is to make all abortions illegal. He could possibly have put some exceptions into this proposed bill, but he didn't say. So i guess we would have to wait until he is put on the spot about it.
This isn't the first time they tried to pass a bill to classify embryos as people. According to an NPR interview I heard a while back1, the bill ran into trouble because of the car pool lane question.
LOL That's funny.
Apparently that question leads to others. If you think about it, if you consider the embryo a person, would you be required to put it in a child safety seat? It isn't big enough to use a seatbelt, and you aren't allowed to use a single seat belt to secure to people at the same time. Also, if the embryo counts as a person for the use of the car pool lane, does it also count as a person for the census? It just goes south from there.
I see this thread went from being a laugh about a gaff on anatomy which outlaws sex to being a talk about abortion... how did that happen?
It's the OTT. I predict that in a few pages (if that), this thread will be about domesticated gold fish attacks.
I see this thread went from being a laugh about a gaff on anatomy which outlaws sex to being a talk about abortion... how did that happen?
It's the OTT.
Nah it didn't happen cuz it's the OTT. It seems it happened cuz you wanted to talk about embryos or abortion or something like that.
I see this thread went from being a laugh about a gaff on anatomy which outlaws sex to being a talk about abortion... how did that happen?
It's the OTT.
Nah it didn't happen cuz it's the OTT. It seems it happened cuz you wanted to talk about embryos or abortion or something like that.
I think you're an embryo. I'm sending my gold fish over your house. He's going to have a few "word" with you.
Wait if Embryos are people, that makes them Doom Truck food.
Doom truck snacks.
Apparently that question leads to others. If you think about it, if you consider the embryo a person, would you be required to put it in a child safety seat?
I wouldn't think so. All children are persons, but not all persons are children, so you can be a person and not be a child. I would think that an embryo would be a fetus person, not a child person.
Also, if the embryo counts as a person for the use of the car pool lane, does it also count as a person for the census? It just goes south from there.
That would be up to the census takers to decide. The thing is, the bill doesn't have to come up with all of those answers. Sometimes you just have to take a big step and figure out the answers to the questions as they come up. Anywho, this is all just hypothetical since such a bill will be labelled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Apparently that question leads to others. If you think about it, if you consider the embryo a person, would you be required to put it in a child safety seat?
I wouldn't think so. All children are persons, but not all persons are children, so you can be a person and not be a child. I would think that an embryo would be a fetus person, not a child person.
That distinction just adds another layer of problems.
Also, if the embryo counts as a person for the use of the car pool lane, does it also count as a person for the census? It just goes south from there.
That would be up to the census takers to decide. The thing is, the bill doesn't have to come up with all of those answers. Sometimes you just have to take a big step and figure out the answers to the questions as they come up. Anywho, this is all just hypothetical since such a bill will be labelled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
I think it would have to be handled by someone more qualified than census takers. The bill may not need to address all these issues, but these issues are what stop it from being passed.
Nah... it still allows for husbandry. I'm sure the next piece of legislation will be about classifying women as livestock.
Actually, if it allows for husbandry, wouldn't that mean it allows for beastiality? I know it sounds like a troll question, but I'm serious.
Ninja Edit: Not necessarily "allow for", but make it a valid excuse if one was arrested for such?
"Well, your honor, I was trying to use that stud horse to get my wife pregnant with a chamPEEN runner, but it just didn't take!"
Nah... it still allows for husbandry. I'm sure the next piece of legislation will be about classifying women as livestock.
Actually, if it allows for husbandry, wouldn't that mean it allows for beastiality? I know it sounds like a troll question, but I'm serious.
Ninja Edit: Not necessarily "allow for", but make it a valid excuse if one was arrested for such?
"Well, your honor, I was trying to use that stud horse to get my wife pregnant with a chamPEEN runner, but it just didn't take!"
It's possible. You can also say your wife was not performing sexual acts on the horse. She was in fact helping you to collect a **** sample to use to impregnate a female horse. Her collection methods are just a bit more involved.