Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Thus says the ACLU
Published on May 6, 2005 By Dr Guy In Current Events

IN what can only be the logical extension of the devaluation of life exhibited in Gideon MacLiesh's article of using Foster children like lab rats, and declaring that anyone that is incapable of feeding themselves is not worthy of life, the ACLU has now declared that a fetus that has transitioned to the post partum stage is not a person.

In a case in Wyoming, a mother has been charged with Child endangerment after her new born son tested posiive to high levels of Methamphetemine.

IN the words of the article:

Foust was in court for a preliminary hearing on a charge of child endangerment. She was arrested last October shortly after she gave birth to a son after blood tests allegedly showed both Foust and the infant had meth in their bloodstreams.

To which the ACLU responded by stating:

The American Civil Liberties Union has criticized Fremont County Attorney Ed Newell for bringing the case. Foust's attorney, Gordon Ellis, said the law shouldn't apply to Foust because a fetus is not a child.

Thus a brave new world has come to fruition, and a baby is not a baby, just a post partum fetus.

So the next time you see some chacko macing a baby, a crack head boyfriend bashing in a baby's head, just remember, they are not people, they are just post partum fetuses.


Comments (Page 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on May 10, 2005

Could you get loans on a whole slew of month old calves? Doubtful. Here's hoping the "collateral" argument doesn't become the standard.

If the 'fetus at any point' crowd get there way, it will be.  A lot of babies are born and die.  They now sound like the old Church.  Since they were not baptized, they cant be called human.  And it is scary that any rational person is arguing the case.

on May 10, 2005

the point i'm trying to make is this: status isn't defined by potential. if the law was intended to protect an unborn child, it should state that explicitly. otherwise they're opening the door to judicial interpretation, no?

The law protects a child.  The child was endangered. The ACLU said it was a fetus.  Which part of that do you not understand?

on May 10, 2005

Who's to say the ten year old wouldn't have died before the 80 year old, anyway? Potential must mean a little something legally.

It depends on where they draw the line at fetus.  If they draw it at +30 tris, I guess the 8 year old loses out.

on May 10, 2005

The ACLU and HanoiJane..

Amen!

on May 10, 2005

yeah but that would require an activist judge. sun don't set on activist judges in wyoming.

No, because the law does not address the method of introduction.  So ANY introduction is illegal.

Got you and the ACLU too!

on May 11, 2005
[qoute]try going to a bank and getting a loan using an pre-partum calf or a litter of pre-partum fetal piglets as collateral. they fit the biological definition of being alive, they have dna consistent with the species to which they belong. what else can they be but a calf and a litter of pigs?

Actually, everytime a farmer goes to get a loan they are asked about such things. Information about how many heifers, sows, hens and harvestable acreage is required. For that matter the rest of us are given the same requirements. When we apply for a loan we are asked for our check stubs, or other evidence of our earnings. Since a loan is nothing more than a bank investing in our future pay, they can and will ask for evidence that our future earnings are worth their investment.

But that's getting making the example the point, so we'll get back to fetus', lawyers and other such trivialities of life. ;~D
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4