Reply #32: aren't you cute?

[iverglas]

Heard on the local news this evening that she referred to the remains as "glippery glop" or something to that effect, seeming to suggest she (like many here) did not consider them to have ever been human beings.

Too bad you choose not to name names, and to merely whisper nasty insinuations instead.

Would my name be one on your mind?

Just in case it is, let me set you straight, shall I?

I stated that a fetus is not a human being.

I made no statement whatsoever about the fetuses and/or infants that are the subject of these reports -- because I DON'T KNOW whether they were fetuses or infants.

Whether anyone considers anyone or anything else to be a human being is really of the most supreme irrelevance to anything. The subject either is or is not a human being. Fetuses are not human beings.

What this woman allegedly said could suggest quite a number of things. It suggests nothing whatsoever about anyone here.

Unlike your own words, which do suggest something about people here. Wouldn't you like to speak a little more plainly for the assembled masses, and state rather than suggesting, and name names rather than cowering?


Here's what your update actually says:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070731/ap_on_re_us/mother_charged

... None of the remains appeared to be those of full-term babies, police said, ... .

... The boy she was charged with killing was stillborn, and looked to be in the 26th week of pregnancy, police said, citing the medical examiner's preliminary report.

"We will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did something to cause that baby to be stillborn," he said.

Police Chief Bernadette DiPino declined to discuss any evidence about how the baby could have been born dead, such as whether Freeman induced an abortion.

They obviously also declined to discuss the whole question of how anyone could kill a baby that was stillborn.