home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13765 talk.abortion:57805
- Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!wetware!drieux
- From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
- Subject: Turning it Back Aroound
- Message-ID: <1993Jan25.072701.17439@wetware.com>
- Sender: news@wetware.com (Usenet News Account)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: vladimir
- Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
- References: <1993Jan22.4673.12392@dosgate> <22JAN199322443287@zeus.tamu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:27:01 GMT
- Lines: 37
-
- gadson@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
- ] In article <1993Jan22.4673.12392@dosgate>, "david meadows" <david.meadows@canrem.com> writes...
- ] |
- ] | It is logical to assume that the child does have a right to
- ] |some of his or her dad's estate. If so, that child must have a legal
- ] |personality in the womb, no?
- ]
- ] No. The child/foetus need not necessarily have any legal
- ] rights while in the womb. Rights might be granted only after birth
- ] as a result of the paternal link.... which does not imply personhood
- ] while in the womb.
-
-
- Why was it that the IRS ruled that a couple, that
- tried to claim their as yet unborn child as a
- born child for tax purposes, had brought
- a frivilous suit?
-
- Is this suggesting that the IRS is a ProChoice Organization?
-
- Does this Suggest that the IRS was in Direct Opposition
- to the Reagan/Bush ProLife Position????
-
- That Reagan and Bush were Never able to get the
- full agenda across? That they new that allowing
- tax exemptions on UnBorn Persons Might be construed
- as a drain on the Federal Budget?????
-
- ciao
- drieux
-
-
- --
- MajorModernDayProblems:
-
- "If you will not talk with Yourself,
- Why should anyone else?"
-