PsuedoGhost
Member
- Apr 21, 2006
- 206
- 15
- 16
Oh, so now it's a "wide-ranging" legal precedent. Not what you stated. Don't try and play semantics with me. I did not state nor imply that a "wide-ranging" legal precedent was set. Only that legal precedent was set. It only takes that law being appealed to a Federal court and you will have your so-called, "wide-ranging" precedent, one way or the other.
Explain to me then why all of these laws (laws that allow someone to be convicted of murder for a fetus) require the baby to be beyond a certain time in the pregnanacy? Hmm?
I didn't respond to it because it is irrelevant to this conversation, and nothing more than a sidetrack, IMO.
No, its very relevant to this discussion.
BTW, why is it impossible for you to quote correctly?