When the hell did people start feeling the NEED to modify the font so much? You can make a point with out it.
And uh... why exactly does that bother you so much? You can also make a point along with it, and you can emphasize the tone of voice you want your post to be read in, thus enhancing communication. Wow!
Dey is sho' nuff de Debbil. Now pass dem crawdads. AAAIIIEEEEEEEEE!
Tu es si jolie, ma cher.
You must record yourself talking Cajun for us, if you already haven't.
I'm late in coming to this thread, but I have to emphasize Emily's previous point:
What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter who's genetic material it is. Just because it has 50 percent your DNA in it, that does not matter. I would argue that you do not own your DNA once it is outside your being and in someone else's.
Indeed.
Also, if a father was to be given paternal rights at conception, then his additional right to take off and abandon his partner and child immediately after conception should be completely stripped from him.
I also have to agree with this, and I think that paternal rights at conception should not be the default. Guardianship of the child should be at the mother's discretion unless some kind of agreement has been made. It's probably reasonable to say that marriage implicitly constitutes such an agreement, though.
As my Crim Law professor would say, what do YOU think? Sure, you can be charged with multiple crimes. The critical question is if the elements are met. I'd bet you would have to show evidence that there was a specific child whose welfare was endangered for that one.
As my Crim Law professor would say, what do YOU think?Su
I think you can, but I don't quite remember. In any event, I'd very much like to, as I think we should be completely merciless to the anti-vaccine crowd. If they've refused to get a child vaccinated for anything other than a verifiable medical reason, I'd say they should be charged with both reckless endangerment and endangering the welfare of a child.
Comments