Hey, that's practically a miracle. They still can't understand "complete separate, very vulnerable tiny human being with its own unique genetic code shouldn't be murdered in cold blood."
I have not heard that one before. But it's the same as separating a patient dependant on a life sustaining device. You'd be thrown behind bars for that.
It's amazing how libs can make a common sense argument go all the way to the Supreme Court. Aiding and abetting is a crime with every other crime
Hey, that's practically a miracle. They still can't understand "complete separate, very vulnerable tiny human being with its own unique genetic code shouldn't be murdered in cold blood."
Well, I can translate on this one. I don't exactly have a position. Their argument would be:
OK, you say it is completely separate, let's completely separate it.
So you can kill anyone who doesn't know how to farm their own food? Cool.
No, but you're not forced to feed them. I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand would be very against forcing farmers to feed others
I have not heard that one before. But it's the same as separating a patient dependant on a life sustaining device. You'd be thrown behind bars for that.
And chopped up and sold "at cost" (not for profit because profit is capitalistic)
Which is negotiable which indicates that the whole at cost reimbursement story is bullshit like the not for profit part.
You get it.