Your logic is do full of holes, I'm not sure where to begin. I can not even use your unrelated parameters to disprove your non-points.
_____ Mark, I think you misunderstood. It was you who said it or someone perhaps else when defining a person, and I have used it as an argument regarding the dead's man wishes, why should they be respected if a person is no longer here and gone presumably forever. You have answered that this was because the last will was written by a dead man when he was alive in the past. It should be then obvious, that even dead people are under some protection of the law, and their wishes are respected, not only written. This is an important argument in solving various claims. . Thus if we agree that a person is considered to be any entity alive at any point in time [ a dead man was alive in the past], then the same legal argument should be used when discussing the protection right for fetuses. There is no real distinction between 'not yet' and 'already not' . A fetus in fact is more alive than a memory of a dead man. Your life philosophy is upside down. Anna _____ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
