Dr Guy Dr Guy

Post Partum Fetus is not a Child

▼

Post Partum Fetus is not a Child

Thus says the ACLU

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?tl=1&display=rednews/2005/05/02/build/wyoming/39-meth.inc
from JoeUser Forums

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.

4,927 views 51 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
by your logic, we're all postpartum feti.

so where do you draw the line?

there is no hard and fast rule for making that determination or for disputing it.

and talk about political correctness. how many of our mothers or grandmothers would be considered horribly unfit by today's standards for pumping us full of nicotine, alcohol and breathing in asbestos?

you're well on the way to creating a new political species: the bleeding heart conservative.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
by your logic, we're all postpartum feti.

Exactly, the whole case doesnt make sense. I think the woman should be charged. Women today have all the information they need to know for the health of their unborn babies. The taking of drugs, alcohol or smoke when pregnant is just plain irresponsible AND criminal. Cant they just see that??? Damit.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
" by your logic, we're all postpartum feti."


And to my knowledge it is illegal to kill any of us. So... I'm not following your logic.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, if there is anything that would know a brainless mass of tissue, it would be the ACLU, their isn't a brain or human being to be found among their members.

I have yet to find anyone who can answer the question, "If a fetus fits the biological definition of being alive, and has DNA consistant with Homo Sapiens (Human Beings), what else can it be but a Human Being).

Now the brainless wastes of human flesh are saying that a baby who has been born, is not really human.

The scum floating world of the ACLU would have us believe that they are the only entity capable of defining life, and that definition seems to be "the ability to communicate".

Face is ACLU, there is nothing more pathetic than your feeble attempts at re-defining everything to fit your halucinations of what reality is.

I have a friend who did an internship with the Utah chapter of the ACLU. Since he wanted to be a Constitutional Lawyer, he was really excited to work with them. By the time he was finished with the internship he said that "There just isn't enough soap and water in the world to ever feel clean again."

The ACLU is nothing more than a gaggle of lying scum who would use our freedoms as a weapon against us.

Other than that, I have no real opinion on the matter. ;~D
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
So... I'm not following your logic


it doesn't work backwards. a prepartum fetus is exactly that.

if the legislature of this state intended this law to punish women for providing feti with illegal drugs, why wasnt that spelled out?

instead of castigating the aclu, why don't yall vent your outrage where it belongs--on the republicans in the wyoming state house and state senate who outnumber democrats by 3:1 and 2:1 respectively.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have yet to find anyone who can answer the question, "If a fetus fits the biological definition of being alive, and has DNA consistant with Homo Sapiens (Human Beings), what else can it be but a Human Being).


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?

this may sound specious but there's always a line. you can't exercise an option a day after it expires. you can't contract with a minor who is one day away from majority on the basis of that person being a post-teen adult.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
"try going to a bank and getting a loan using an pre-partum calf or a litter of pre-partum fetal piglets as collateral."


Granted, you can't count your chickens before they are hatched, but does that mean they aren't chickens? Any child might not make it, but it seems iffy to say that because they aren't 100% assured of survival that it's okay to go on and make sure they don't.

Could you get loans on a whole slew of month old calves? Doubtful. Here's hoping the "collateral" argument doesn't become the standard.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Any child might not make it, but it seems iffy to say that because they aren't 100% assured of survival that it's okay to go on and make sure they don't.


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?
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
And yet civil settlements for wrongful death involving an 80 year old are vastly smaller than those involving a ten year old.

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.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
it doesn't work backwards. a prepartum fetus is exactly that.


"Post Partum Fetus?" Wait a minute, doesn't that mean a "Neonate?" Are we to the point that a baby is still a fetus even after it is outside the mother?

According to the article linked, the law simply states that it is illegal to give meth to a baby. Whether or not the law applies to a pre-partum fetus is merely a test of interpretation of the law itself. The only thing the republican dominated state senate did was ban meth in babies... Yeah, outrageous! ;~D

Yes, I do castigate the ACLU as often as I can (sometimes I admittedly even go a bit overboard for the situation). There are 2 things that get my dander up just be reading or hearing their names...

The ACLU and HanoiJane..

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Potential must mean a little something legally.


you may be onto something. imagine the lucrative possibilities and fame awaiting the first attorney to win a huge award for loss of a lifetime of earnings on behalf of potential heirs of a fetus killed in an auto accident.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Whether or not the law applies to a pre-partum fetus is merely a test of interpretation of the law itself


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

There are 2 things that get my dander up just be reading or hearing their names...


you might wanna reassess your priorities?
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ugh. Killing babies is just wrong. No matter how you look at it or what you call it.

Well, a good lawyer is going to use any loophole,a nd now apparently a post partum fetus is a loophole.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

by your logic, we're all postpartum feti.

so where do you draw the line?

there is no hard and fast rule for making that determination or for disputing it.

and talk about political correctness. how many of our mothers or grandmothers would be considered horribly unfit by today's standards for pumping us full of nicotine, alcohol and breathing in asbestos?

you're well on the way to creating a new political species: the bleeding heart conservative.

Damn!  Coming from you that last one is a compliment!

as for the Line, lets draw it back at least at the partum part.  Can we agree on that?

As for out mothers, the drugs you say (other than alcohol) are not in babies blood.  And unless an alchy, not detrimental to the baby. meth, crack, etal is.

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

Cant they just see that??? Damit.

WOW!  I have never seen you upset.  It looks like this one everyone is on the same page, just different paragraphs!

Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

And to my knowledge it is illegal to kill any of us. So... I'm not following your logic.

He is just trying to draw a new Roe V Wade line, and not having a good (conscious) time doing it.

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well, if there is anything that would know a brainless mass of tissue, it would be the ACLU, their isn't a brain or human being to be found among their members.

I would have said heart.  But to each his own organ.

Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

I have a friend who did an internship with the Utah chapter of the ACLU. Since he wanted to be a Constitutional Lawyer, he was really excited to work with them. By the time he was finished with the internship he said that "There just isn't enough soap and water in the world to ever feel clean again."

The ACLU is nothing more than a gaggle of lying scum who would use our freedoms as a weapon against us.

After the former statement, I have new found respect for your friend!  And the latter is just a redundancy.

Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

if the legislature of this state intended this law to punish women for providing feti with illegal drugs, why wasnt that spelled out?

instead of castigating the aclu, why don't yall vent your outrage where it belongs--on the republicans in the wyoming state house and state senate who outnumber democrats by 3:1 and 2:1 respectively.

As Parated said, the difference in a fetus and a baby is in the belief of the beholder.  But the rub here is that if she had aborted it, she would have, literally, gotten away with murder.  She had the baby, and in so doing endangered it.  The stupidity is in thinking that a nine month term fetus is still a zygote, andnot a baby.  The former belief gets you post partum fetus.

 

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top

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?

Great one!  Now we are pigs and cows!  Cognizance has no meaning, and Peta just won.  Your arguments are going farther and farther afield.  This case, if the ACLU persues it, is going to set back Roe V Wade 30 years.  Because it is going to show the hypocrisy of a 9 month zygote vs a 9 month baby.

But you support your pigs and cows!

Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top

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?

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top

The ACLU and HanoiJane..

Amen!

Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

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!