Man sues parents for giving birth to him w/o his consent

Posted by  $  exceller 2 months, 1 week ago to Culture
81 comments | Share | Flag

The guy is a member of the sect of "antinatalism" with increasing following, that claims it is morally wrong for people to procreate.

This jibes in nicely with the left's killing of babies, giving way to Muslim high level procreation who don't ask permission.
SOURCE URL: https://www.foxnews.com/world/indian-man-to-sue-his-parents-for-giving-birth-to-him-without-his-consent-wants-to-be-paid-for-his-life


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
    The Mother asked the question that every normal person would ask: If he can come up with a way to advise how they could have asked his permission, she would accept the blame.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Suzanne43 2 months, 1 week ago
      I suppose that the Left would say that after that first slap to get the baby to breathe, he cries. And that should tell the parent that he doesn't want to be here. In the past, these idiots would be laughed at and forgotten, but now we are having a discussion about them. This whole thing is utterly ridiculous.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 1 week ago
    Seems obvious and correct to me -- if--
    you 'believe' that human life begins before birth, then he should have been asked for his consent at the right time about such a major decision. Without proof of having that consent the parents are guilty as charged.

    If- laws and court systems were to follow that belief, parents who do not trust their (unborn- they call it) children and want to avoid being sued, will know what to do. (legal or not)
    Maybe it is not so bad, a new profession will spring up of (suitably licensed) psychic commmunicators who will convey the arrangement to the .er. unborn, and will present their consent. (Outreach officers to the unborn community) .
    Wait a mo. suppose the state acredited psychic communicator (SAPC) fails to provide consent, what then? Life having begun at conception they say, what to do? Answer- the communicators have to start work earlier on ovo and sperm requiring a large employment increase for SAPCs to the delight of Keysian economists.
    'Every Sperm is Sacred, etc' See Life of Brian by Monty Python.

    I could go on but it all too much fun.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  BiggestShoelaces 2 months, 1 week ago
    A fetus can have no ability to consent or dissent, hence why abortion is a moral right.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 2 months, 1 week ago
      If one is to follow your logic, a person in a comma has no ability to consent or dissent, and certainly no way of paying for any services; therefore, turning off the feeding machine is a moral right... Should we continue with that "logic"?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
        A person in a coma is not a fetus that has not yet become a person. People who are sick do not lose their rights because at some instant they "here now cannot speak". This requires conceptual understanding beyond the percpetual state of staring at a momentary event. There are legal procedures concerning presumptions, prior written statements of intent (a "living will"), and legal power of attorney.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
      The concepts of 'consent' or 'dissent' do not apply to a fetus at all, for the same reason it has no 'right' to be born: It is a pre-human potential, not a person.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by strugatsky 2 months, 1 week ago
        Please explain the difference between a child @-1 day vs a child @+1 day?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -1
          Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          There is no "child @-1 day". The biologically parasitic entity in the womb, which doesn't even eat or breath, functioning parasitically is not a child in the external world. This has been discussed many times here.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by strugatsky 2 months, 1 week ago
            Would you like to tell that to my former girlfriend? She was born at 6 months. She’s doing fine now, but she would surely like to hear your assessment and evaluation of her.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              She was a child after she was born. The time inside isn't relevant to that.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by strugatsky 2 months, 1 week ago
                She was born/delivered artificially. Just like any child that is @-1 day can be born/delivered artificially. I don't think that the process of cutting the umbilical cord is the defining difference between a human and, as you called it, a "parasite." Now, to set the stage correctly, let me say that I am not religious and my views are not based on religion. Furthermore, I do not consider a sperm and an egg, united or not, to be a human being. But it is illogical to declare that the "human" process does not happen in the womb, but only in a split second when whatever it is comes out of the womb, by whatever method. Clearly, it happens gradually and within the womb. And in the latest version of Virginia legislation, killing the child after birth, if desired, is not only permitted, but celebrated. This is just too far. I am seriously concerned that in a decade or so my elimination may be considered.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 1 week ago
                  The push for late term abortion has to do with the woman dilating . Only when fully dilated can the cranium go through the birth canal undamaged.
                  It is much more valuable for the sale of the brain and pineal gland.
                  It is ridicules that a woman couldn’t decide to be a mother or not up to the last minute. BTW some aborted fetuses are born alive and then killed.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                  An artificial birth is a birth, not the day before birth.

                  The difference between birth and pre-birth is fact not "illogic". The difference is not wiped out by dismissing it as a difference regarding only the time across "split seconds". The nature of the entity is different in essentials before and after birth, regardless of the time it takes or the method.

                  The "gradual" development -- over (normally) 9 months -- is all pre-birth. For the entire time period it is a potential human being, not a person.

                  There was no Virginia legislation that would have (it did not pass) allowed "killing the child after birth" and that was not celebrated. The bill concerned third-trimester abortions, not infanticide (which is how it has been falsely hyped by activists). There was a commemoration and celebration of the NY law that also pertained to abortion, not infanticide. It changed the law allowing third-trimester abortions when the life of the woman is threatened to when the life or health of the woman is threatened.

                  If our "elimination may be considered" it will likely be because of gang civil war or, if "legally", because of socialized medicine rationing -- not because of protecting the rights of women from being forced to bear children they don't want or which threaten their own health and lives.

                  I am glad your former girl friend survived her unusual birth. She was clearly wanted.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by strugatsky 2 months, 1 week ago
                    As to Virginia's laws, I am basing this from an interview by the governor (a former pediatrician...) who happily explained that under the new law, if the mother decides to terminate the child after birth (presumably, but I would not guarantee it, and if she supposedly determines that the child has serious defects, which in China is often considered as being born female), that's perfectly fine.

                    Since there is no obvious mathematical formula that determines person-hood with any precision, it does fall into the category of philosophy, which is a bit less defined. For example, when I cut open a leather-like egg of the newborn shark in my tank and helped the newborn shark come out of the egg, it was quite obvious to me that the shark was alive and living prior to my cutting of the egg. I would apply the same courtesy to a human.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                      The governor did not say that the child would be killed after birth as a follow up on abortion. They were talking about cases of unviability or extreme deformity. What kind of extraordinary measures are taken or not taken to keep permanently severely incapacitated patients of all ages alive is an every day occurrence that has nothing to do with abortion.

                      The child is a person when it is born. That does not require mathematical precision for person-hood. That the fetus is "alive" in its parasitic state before birth does not mean it is alive as a child and therefore a person.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by rhfinle 2 months, 1 week ago
      Incorrect. A fetus is temporarily disabled with regard to communications. and therefore has all the rights of a disabled person. If you want him/her to consent or dissent, there will be a habituation period of 12-18 years before they are deemed capable of making and expressing a rational decision. Sorry, but after conception the mother's body is a shared commodity, like a shared apartment, in which both occupants have rights.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
        A fetus is not "temporarily disabled". It has not yet become "enabled" as a human being. A woman's body is not a "shared apartment", a fetus has no "rights", and there can be no "rights" contradicting each other.

        "Therefore[?] has all the rights of a disabled person" is yet another bizarre non sequitur from those who do not understand the nature and source of rights and who treat the concept 'rights' as a floating abstraction. See Ayn Rand's essay "Man's Rights".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by rhfinle 2 months, 1 week ago
          I did. "There is only one fundamental right ... a man's right to his own life." This currently applies only to Homo Sapiens humans. At exactly what point can a fetus be classified as a human? At that point he is immediately due his rights, even though he doesn't know it. I'm not entirely against about abortion, but I think we should be sensible about it. New York's recent decision to abort third-trimester kids that could in many cases survive is beyond the pale. I personally think the cutoff should be between conception and at whatever point the nervous system is developed enough to register pain.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
            "The fetus is known to have pain receptors throughout the body by 8 weeks of gestation. By 20 weeks gestational age, the fetus will react to a painful stimulus in the same manner that adults do."
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by rhfinle 2 months, 1 week ago
              So, in my non-medical-professional opinion, I would set 20 weeks as the upper limit beyond which abortion should be no longer allowed. 20 weeks should be plenty long enough to allow Mommy to decide if she wants to keep it or kill it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                No part of a woman's life is subject to your opinions. Whether in your "opinion" you "would set" 20 weeks or anything else is irrelevant. You have no idea and no right to intrude in when a woman discovers she is pregnant, it's medical state, when or why she decides she does or does not want to bear a child, when she may discover a changed medical state in a fetus or her own health, and when she chooses to act to stop the process. It is none of your arrogant business.

                As Ayn Rand put it, ""A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

                "Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by rhfinle 2 months ago
                  "A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born." Sorry, but as much as I like Ayn Rand, this is just an opinion. I stand by my earlier statement, that as a (total or incomplete) human being, the fetus has rights too, and the mother's body must be considered a shared commodity after conception. The fetus' rights should be weighed in also. So far I have seen no one provide concrete evidence that a developing human fetus should not legally have rights as a human.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                    The basis of rights in the facts of man's nature is not "just an opinion". See "The Objectivist Ethics" and "Man's Rights". If you like Ayn Rand you should at least know that much.

                    "Standing by" your own arbitrary "statement" -- asserted as if it were not "just opinion" -- that the unborn potential human being has "rights" and a woman's body is a "shared apartment" that "must be considered a shared commodity", is obscene. That dismissal of the moral right of a woman to her own body, with the demand to impose the force of government to sacrifice women to your feelings for alleged "rights" of the unborn is, as Ayn Rand put it, unspeakable.

                    The concept of 'rights' is a moral concept based on the facts of the nature of man as a person. See "The Objectivist Ethics" and "Man's Rights". Rights are a characteristic of man by his nature. The concept cannot be arbitrarily applied to entities that do not have those characteristics on which his rights depend. Fetuses do not have those characteristics. There are no "fetus' rights" to "weigh". The concept does not pertain to fetuses.

                    You equivocate between "human" as an adjective -- as in 'human cells' or 'human fetus' -- versus a 'human person'. In arbitrarily insisting on "rights" of the unborn, you treat the concept 'rights' as a floating abstraction without regard to the concept's meaning in reality, emotionally attaching it to a fetus as if "rights" were 'intrinsic' to anything called "human", which is mysticism, in contrast to an objective characteristics of human persons. It is based on nothing but feelings and anti-conceptual imagery, with complete disregard for the meaning of the concept 'rights' and the facts on which it is based.

                    No one has to prove that a fetus does "not legally have rights as a human".
                    The burden of proof is on he who arbitrarily asserts it does. That can't be done because the floating concept notion of 'rights' is conceptually meaningless, divorced from referents in reality. But the policy of "rights" for the unborn does have meaning in reality: the barbaric practice of forcing women to bear children they do not want, in stark violation of their rights as real, live human beings. Metaphors about "shared apartments" do not change that stark reality.

                    You don't appear to have any understanding of why any of us have rights, least of all the women you demand to treat as "shared commodities" as you regard them as shared breeding stock "commodities".
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by rhfinle 2 months ago
                      EWV, I know I seem obstinate, but honestly I'm enjoying and am refreshed by your systematic logic. I do not see women as "breeding stock" and I believe that unwanted pregnancy should be terminated immediately, especially in the face of any rape, coercion or incest. I am just concerned about the definition of Human and its relationship to the definition of Human Rights. "No one has to prove that a fetus does "not legally have rights as a human".
                      The burden of proof is on he who arbitrarily asserts it does." is going to come up again, eventually, in the cases of machine intelligence and (possible) alien life. I believe you are right in principle, but I take the pragmatic approach that if you're going to abort, it's best to do it early. That's all. As for 'Standing by" your own arbitrary "statement" -- asserted as if it were not "just opinion"': Sorry, it was just an opinion. If I had meant more I would have provided supporting arguments. Again, I do like your thorough logic. Emotionally charged issues should be worked out carefully to the point where opposition parties cannot provide adequate rationale, in order to get them to see other sides.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                        With no basis to ban abortion there is also no basis to ban it after an arbitrary time limit before birth. Of course it should be done as soon as practical -- for the woman's own self interest. But the woman's body remains her body to choose if and when to do it it regardless of the rationalizations we here constantly about a potential person being "human", always ignoring the woman's rights and the source and nature of the concept of 'rights' itself.

                        And in practice almost all abortions are early, with very late term abortions being for reasons of health. Discoveries of pregnancy, developing health problems of either the woman or the fetus, changing life circumstances, and the time to gather information and decide do not always occur conveniently immediately after the beginning of pregnancy, and no one has a right to interfere with that.

                        What you need is the conceptual understanding of the basis of morality and its political corallary 'rights'.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by rhfinle 2 months, 1 week ago
              So if you do the abortion before 8 weeks, you are at least comforted by knowing you are injuring/killing someone who will never be aware of it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
                I don't think you can ever be comforted by anything when aborting a fetus.

                People should watch the video (there are many available when you do a search on the web) about the development of the fetus inside the uterus.

                It is a miracle of nature as the new life progresses through several stages of development.

                To put an end to it is very disturbing to say the least.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                  The stages of development are a natural biological process, not a "miracle". Every process must occur by some means. Emotional imagery over videos is not a conceptual argument for rights of a fetus.

                  However disturbed you feel about stopping the process, it is nothing in comparison with unspeakable barbarity of forcing women to bear children they don't want, sacrificing an actual human being to emotions over a potential new person.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                There is no "someone" to be aware of anything.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by rhfinle 2 months ago
                  Before my kid was born, he would start kicking ferociously when I sang to my wife's tummy.
                  After birth, he would start kicking and laugh his ass off if I started singing. He recognized my voice and didn't do it for anyone else. I have no reason to believe that was not the same 'human' response. He would have been no less aware at 8.5 month than at birth plus a week, if something had grabbed him and killed him. IMHO, at 9 months and for at least some time less, there is 'someone' there.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                    We don't have rights because we can "kick ferociously". Nor are claimed "human" responses and awareness from a fetus anything other than imagination. None of it makes a fetus a "someone", i.e., a person, with "rights" before birth and none of it justifies the barbaric forcing of women to bear children they don't want.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              A fetus does not react to anything in the same manner as adults do. It's a passive stimulus, not an awareness of pain identified conceptually and accomplished by "ouch". The raw feeling of pain is not the basis of morality and rights. All kinds of lower animals experience pain. "Pain receptors" are not why we have rights and are not why anything is "human".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by rhfinle 2 months ago
                Correct, though the same could be said for infants. So where do you draw the line? The moment when a viable 'potential human' comes off of maternal life support sounds arbitrary to me, because viability is not based on that moment. I concede that it's a major event for all parties involved, though.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                  The same cannot be said for infants. They don't experience the world as an adult does, but they are biologically independent entities with direct perception of the external world and the choice to focus on it as they learn more and their especially mental development of choice and knowledge progresses. They are a "someone".

                  Viability is does not mean 'person' and is not the source of rights; viable means it's a potential human being not yet born, but with a good chance of surviving normally if it is born. That does not give it advanced personhood with rights. The line is drawn at birth.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
            Man's rights pertains to human beings. A fetus is a potential human being. To be person you must first be born; you must be a biologically independent entity. A fetus necessarily exists in a biologically parasitic state in an extreme limited environment. It is not a person and does not and cannot function as a person in the womb.

            There is nothing in the article "Man's Rights" about fetuses or anything about the source and nature of rights that a fetus qualifies for. You saw nothing about the concept of rights depending on "registering pain". All kinds of sub-human animals feel pain; it does not give them rights.

            Rights are a moral concept based on the nature of the human person, not anything to which the word 'human' is attached, such as 'human cells'. They are not handed out for whatever someone decides is "immediately due rights" without regard to the nature and source of rights -- the facts that give rise to the concept -- and why human beings have them.

            Third trimester fetuses are not "kids"; "viability", i.e., the potential to be born, does not make the concept 'rights' applicable; and we do not have rights because we can "register pain".

            Did you decide to ascribe 'rights' to fetuses before or after you read about the nature and source of rights in the article "Man's Rights"?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by rhfinle 2 months, 1 week ago
              "A fetus is a potential human being". OK, good opinion, says who? And why does
              the "potential" condition qualify him for exclusion? I think that the problem is, so far, no one has come up with an adequate unambiguous definition of Human Being.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                That a fetus is a potential human being is biological fact, not opinion. Human beings do not become fetuses.

                A fetus is not "excluded" from having human rights, it does not qualify to be included. The concept of rights is based on the facts of what human beings are, and cannot be arbitrarily ascribed to other entities. Nor can the rights of the woman be wiped out because you prefer something else, emotionally tying a floating abstraction of 'rights' to a fetus and less, and giving that priority over a woman's life.

                The concept of human being -- "man", philosophically -- was identified and defined by Aristotle thousands of years ago. Ayn Rand showed why and how the Enlightenment idea of natural rights applies, properly conceived. It has nothing to do with "shared apartments". Did you get those notions before or after you read Ayn Rand's "Man's Rights"?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by rhfinle 2 months ago
                  I realize this issue is hotly contested primarily because it can be interpreted in many ways. Politically I am somewhere between Libertarian and Conservative, and also take issue with some of the anti-religious statements Rand made. I was trying (unsuccessfully) to take a middle ground here, and will simply suggest that abortions should be allowed, but limited to first or second trimester, which would at least somewhat appease the "they're killing babies!" faction.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Solver 2 months, 1 week ago
    “I was born therefor other people should be forced to take care of me for the rest of my life.”

    Sounds like socialism in a nutshell.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months, 1 week ago
    Recently I know of at least two children who really thanked their mothers for giving them birth. One intercepted his mother's mail (she is in the hospital with a broken leg), he paid all her bills! The other, a girl, thanked her mother for taking her and her three siblings to the Women's Shelter when her drunken father got abusive!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  puzzlelady 2 months, 1 week ago
    Check this out with the Mormons. They believe that every person chooses his parents before conception, as the spirit is in the "pre-existence" waiting to be born again. So this bloke, in fact, chose or hired or appointed his parents to bring him into existence. No backing out of the contract now, you scoundrel. The Mormons also explain that one cannot remember the pre-existence, as a veil is drawn across when the individual comes into this world, so he would not remember having made that contract. Just accept that he did.

    I'm not sure which version is funnier.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 2 months, 1 week ago
    I would love to see a judge say, "Get Out of my courtroom. Case dismissed." The next thing we'll see is an aborted leftist suing their parents for aborting them. It is my contention that abortion should be allowed up through the teen year's, but only for Democrats. This would solve several problems we've invented.

    In reality I still believe the government should stay out of the issue entirely. Any taking of life however needs to be punished according to the law. We just have to figure out what we can agree on as to what life is. It'll be an issue for many years to come, keeps the politicians busy defending their prejudices and powers.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 1 week ago
    Before he existed, he had no rights. Therefore, his parents did not violate his (non-existent) rights by creating him. True, having brought a child into the world in a helpless, defenseless state, parents are obligated to support, protect, and give him some sort of survival training until his majority, but then their obligation ends.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bobsprinkle 2 months, 1 week ago
    Allrighty then......the child can sue the parents for not having permission to birth the baby. It stands to reason the child can ALSO sue the parents for not having permission to abort the child.....PERFECT!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months, 1 week ago
    I have to be honest. In looking at him if I was his mother I would sue him for being such a thankless child! How dare he? There isn't anything special about him but his mother is special. She gave him life!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months, 1 week ago
    Well, now that you mention it! I don't think anyone asked my permission to impregnate me unless it was in the marriage ceremony and since I helped write that I don't recall it. I was truly surprised when my husband informed me I was pregnant!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 2 months, 1 week ago
    The parents should counter-sue for him destroying their well-intentioned egg and sperm and evolving into a moral waste that he is. Termination of this abomination seems to be the best solution.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Snezzy 2 months, 1 week ago
    Both his parents are lawyers. The three of them have likely put together this show for fun or for political position. Stay tuned to see which of them decide to stand for Parliament.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 2 months, 1 week ago
    Send him to NY. If they can kill a baby immediately after birth then I am sure we can grant his wish.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
      NY law does not allow "killing a baby immediately after birth". Please stop spreading the false rumors.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by GaryL 2 months, 1 week ago
        OK, I will correct my false statement which actually was Virginia if it passes. In NY you can only kill the baby "Immediately Before Birth". Just a minor technicality!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
          It did not pass in VA.

          It passed in NY.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by GaryL 2 months, 1 week ago
            Pretty sure EV is correct about the NY law, Up to but not after birth. The VA one did allow for murder or infanticide after birth but as you said, it was voted down. My original comment was pretty much tongue in cheek but some here rejoice in splitting hairs even though it might be just minutes that decide if a full term baby lives or dies.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              The Virginia bill was about abortion, not about allowing infanticide, i.e., "after birth", which is a redundancy.

              The criterion is birth not "just minutes". That is not "splitting hairs". When you die it's significant to the undead corpse, too, not just a matter of some minutes.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago
    The parents should countersue for the costs of raising such an idiot. Last number I saw bandied about was about $180,000 as the cost of raising a child...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo