Let's make miscarriages illegal.

[Darius871]

From the first line of the article you posted:

...if the mother cannot prove there was no "human involvement.

Reverse onus.

Well, looking at the quotes the "mother cannot prove" part appears to be the author's ****ty paraphrasing; further down it quotes the bill's actual wording categorically excluding miscarriages "so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever." That wording, combined with the pre-existing constitutional status quo, would suggest the bill's originial intention (and courts' inevitable subsequent interpetation) that the State would have to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that human involvement occurred. But don't let that get in the way of a good ol' sensationalist circle-jerk.

[germanos]

So there are no examples in those countries of such laws?

Are there? The burden of proof is on you, you generalizing bastard. You just pulled those groups out of your arse.

[MrFun]

Germanos, stop distorting my statements. What I actually said is dramatically different from what you so-called "quoted."

I would have expected such a proposed law from a dictator of an African country, or a Muslim fundamentalist country, not from a politician of a Western, "enlightened" country.

[SlowwHand]

He should work for CNN.

[germanos]

Germanos, stop distorting my statements. What I actually said is dramatically different from what you so-called "quoted."

No it's not. Your prejudice is only thinly veiled by your adjectives (?):

I would have expected such a proposed law from a dictator of an African country, or a Muslim fundamentalist country, not from a politician of a Western, "enlightened" country.

Found any laws yet on miscarriages being illegal?

[MrFun]

I never said all Muslims or all Africans. You're just talking out of your ass, germanos.

[germanos]

There was no need to mention Africans or Muslims AT ALL. Apparently YOU tie Africans and Muslims to this while you have not a single thread of evidence to back your prejudice up.

You should be aware that it's the generalisation of groups is harmfull. How often you do not hear prejudiced statements on gays and when the bigots are confronted say: "I have nothing against gays, some of my best friends are gay." At the moment that's the level of your defence for your bigoted remarks ("I didn't say ALL").

[germanos]

Maybe this clarifies what I mean:

I would have expected such a proposed law from a dictator or a fundamentalist country.

Sounds much better to my ears.

[MrFun]

Okay, that's a better way of putting it.

But that statement is prejudicial against dictators and fundamentalists. You're a PC nazi.

[germanos]

**** you, gaylord.

[Wezil]

Well, looking at the quotes the "mother cannot prove" part appears to be the author's ****ty paraphrasing; further down it quotes the bill's actual wording categorically excluding miscarriages "so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever."

Fair enough. I read the opening and figured it was the typical Republican/prolife BS. I confess I didn't read any further as this was enough for me to roll eyes and move on.

That wording, combined with the pre-existing constitutional status quo, would suggest the bill's originial intention (and courts' inevitable subsequent interpetation) that the State would have to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that human involvement occurred.

Great.

But don't let that get in the way of a good ol' sensationalist circle-jerk.

Meh. Get better reporters. The article by your own admission was incorrect.

[Wezil]

Are you a "pro-lifer" Darius?

I'm trying to figure out why my criticism made you butt sore enough to accuse me of a circle jerk...

[MrFun]

**** you, gaylord.

Go back to playing with the kids in the playground, little one.

[germanos]

I just noticed there's a username 'mrfun licks ass'

Bye Fun!

[MrFun]

There is?