Steen sounds like Bill Clinton after becoming the 'victim' in the Lewinski affair:
False.
False.
False.
Define Late term.
Define Baby.
Define IS.
You offer no explanation to YOUR ruling of 'false' other than simply because YOU say so.
You say if a woman goes out, has unprotected sex, then gets pregnant that the pregnancy is not a consequence/result of her OWN actions, that it is indeed a 'punishment'. That is the most moronic argument for the 'It's Not My fault, I'm the Victim/Blame everyone Else But Ourselves' generation that infects us today! And if it is a punishment, I guess it is God punishing you for having sex before marriage, which means god must be a male to treat women so unjustly...which means that, in your logic in the end, that Abortions are eventually all God's fault!? :rofl
And stace makes the Case that our logic regarding the Peterson case is flawed? She makes the case that you can kill a 'choice' and be charged with MURDER for killing a 'choice'. :spin:
If THAT was the case, Stace, you, your Pro-Abortion buddies, and the Federal Goverment would be on trial for MURDERING my CHOICE as a parent, for stripping away my rights/choice as a parent by saying YOU have the right to secretly whisk my underaged daughters away during school to have an abortion without parental notification. By your definition of the Peterson case decision, you and your Pro-abortion rights groups who are still doing this today are MURDERERS!
That, however, is insane and the argument/defense of a desperate person who does not want to hear reality!
The truth is that you can NOT be charged with murder for taking away a 'choice', and Scott Peterson was charged with the murder of 2 human beings - his wife and his unborn child. Of course, the second defense of one who has no argument is to put them on their 'ignore' list so they don't have to hear the argument of reality for which they have no real answer...besides; Uh-uh, false, Uh-uh, what is 'IS', what is 'baby'....? THAT is pathetic and definitely worthy of an 'IGNORE'!
In the end, though - as I first said, the Peterson decision has opened the door for interpretation that will eventually be heard, IMO, in the Supreme Court.