To: Clara Lou
Except for the fact that the Phoenix judge just effectively ruled that the unborn are not people .
9 posted on
01/15/2006 10:49:53 AM PST by
presidio9
(Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.)
To: presidio9
Except for the fact that the Phoenix judge just effectively ruled that the unborn are not people .
Does a child in a carseat count towards multiple occupancy for HOV lane use?
13 posted on
01/15/2006 10:53:37 AM PST by
Clara Lou
(A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. --I. Kristol)
To: presidio9
No, I really don't think he did:
"For HOV purposes, a person is someone who occupies a separate and distinct space in a vehicle"
To: presidio9
Do you really think this woman was trying to make an altruistic statement about the Rights of the Unborn? Please. She was trying to get out of a ticket.
To: presidio9
Except for the fact that the Phoenix judge just effectively ruled that the unborn are not people .
They are people, just haven't had the "out of body" experience yet.
49 posted on
01/15/2006 11:49:56 AM PST by
moog
To: presidio9
Except for the fact that the Phoenix judge just effectively ruled that the unborn are not people . He sholuld explain that to the jury that convicted Scott Peterson of TWO counts of murder.
81 posted on
01/15/2006 12:25:37 PM PST by
TBP
To: presidio9
Except for the fact that the Phoenix judge just effectively ruled that the unborn are not people . No, he specifically stated his definition of a person as someone who does not occupy a separate seat is for "HOV purposes". I believe this judge was right in his decision, and I am someone who thinks the unborn should be protected by law.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson