On 15 Oct 2011 02:00:18 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 14 Oct 2011 21:31:20 GMT, Han wrote:

Just Wondering wrote in
news:4e98a264$0$6530$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your
constitutional rights. Decisions about procreation are a
fundamental constitutional right.

You think that octomom exercised her constitutional rights?

What "right" did she exercise that you believe she didn't have? Also,
please point to the passage in the Constitution that justifies your
argument.

So in your opinion she exercised her constitutional rights to pay a
physician who should get his license revoked (my opinion) to implant way
too many embryos.

Absolutely she had that Constitutional right. If you disagree, please point
to the passage that show otherwise. His license was revoked, AFAIK.

I don't think the constitution enumerates the rights to become pregnant,
so that is a moot point.

Of course it doesn't. The Constitution is a limitation on GOVERNMENT'S power,
not on human rights. Humans have inalienable rights. They're *not*
enumerated, ANYWHERE.

In my opinion she didn't have the right to precreate on an industrial
scale and let society take care of the consequences.

You say she didn't have the "right". Just where is that right limited? How
is it limited? Would 7 embryos be within this "right"? How about six? Where
is this limit? Because *you* think it's "wrong:, doesn't mean she doesn't
have the "right" to be stupid.