REAL issues

Don Corleone wrote:well what if it has a disease or sumtin along those lines that would most likely kil it anyway?
wouldnt it be better to abort it and then actually use it?

I see your logic Don, but wouldn't the disease affect the cells?

its possible.
but maybe not.
But lets say it was just very sickly,like having a weak immune system forever or something.so many possibilities...

If it's already died from the disease, sure. But otherwise, no because the hosptials can still cure it.
Besides, how often does a baby contract a deadly disease (as in, 5-days-to-live deadly) while still in the mother?
And at this point, most of the cells usualy have a set purpose for the disease to have anything to take hold of, so the stem cells probably won't be any more useful than a regular adults anyways. Remember, you can get stem cells from an adult and he/she will still live just fine.

Don Corleone wrote:its possible.
but maybe not.
But lets say it was just very sickly,like having a weak immune system forever or something.so many possibilities...

Again, I said I saw your logic, but that just wasn't the best example.

Now, speaking of pig fetuses, do those have usable stem cells?

thats a good point.
and they regenerate i think too.
itd be a cell drive lol
@civ

@ pie
Yes, but they aren't the same as human ones...

CivBase wrote:
Fetus can feel, hear, talk, smell, ect after just a few weeks. I see no reason to kill it just because it's in the mothers womb instead of outside.

Not sure what religious organization is providing you with these lies, but they really can't do any of that....


And yes, stem cell research can be done without aborted fetuses or even test tube fetuses. But still many consider the two concepts of Abortion and Stem Cells linked, which they aren't.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:
Fetus can feel, hear, talk, smell, ect after just a few weeks. I see no reason to kill it just because it's in the mothers womb instead of outside.

Not sure what religious organization is providing you with these lies, but they really can't do any of that....

That would be my health teacher.

Week 13: Baby can start to move and eyes begin to develop
Week 14: Hormone effects
Week 15: All major organs are developed. Baby can hear
Week 22: Taste buds develop

KristallNacht wrote:And yes, stem cell research can be done without aborted fetuses or even test tube fetuses. But still many consider the two concepts of Abortion and Stem Cells linked, which they aren't.

Like I said, I'm all for stem cell research, so long as it's not demanding aborted fetuses. So, have you guys given up on trying to rectify abortion?

Onyxknight wrote:rot we're not talking about the math symbol -.- but why use pi?

Pi == Pie. It was just so amazing that they named a dish out of it.

CivBase wrote:I just found it kinda funny that he's complaining that people don't pay attention to real issues, while in another thread he's acting like it's the end of the world because of some stupid avatars he'll never have to use.

Ah, irony. I can appreciate that.

ReconToaster wrote: But did I ever call for federal intervention to take the avatars out?

No, you just complained about, nothing new. ;)

ReconToaster wrote: All that I am saying about abortion is that i do not consider a human fetus to be inherently more important than that of any other species. Humans gain their humanity, they are not born with it. If i could sacrifice a human fetus for the life of a full grown human, who has acquired humanity, I would do it with no questions asked.

So when is humanity "acquired"? And what about those who do not love or contribute, like criminals. Do you believe that we should kill them and perhaps harvest their organs to save lives? Would that be just? And what if you could sacrifice nothing and still save that full grown human? In fact, what if you could recycle stuff normally thrown away to save that human. The umbilical cord and placenta are normally thrown away after birth, but they are rich in blood stem cells.

ReconToaster wrote: Yet people seem to disagree with stem cell research.

I'm not against stem cell research, I'm against embryonic stem cell research. I'm quite in favor of blood stem cell research (placentas, umbilical cords, and the like) and adult stem cell research.

CivBase wrote:What makes a human a human? It's love of life? It's realization that it lives? Well, babies don't have that, so are you okay with sacrificing a born child for such a thing? Even children typicaly don't understand life, are you okay with sacrificing them? A fetus is no different. Just because something can't feel pain, does that make it okay to kill it? Well, paralized people typicaly can't feel pain, is it okay to kill them? Fetus can feel, hear, talk, smell, ect after just a few weeks. I see no reason to kill it just because it's in the mothers womb instead of outside. Is location a reason to justify murder?
And furthermore, you're not saving the life of an adult, you're donating the baby to sience so adults can conduct research on the corpse. Most of the time, not even that. I'm okay with stem cell research, but not if it requires abortion. They can go get their stem cells some other way.

On the issue of abortion, many people consider embryonic stem cell research to be a type of abortion that occurs very very early. I agree, which is why I prefer blood stem cell research and adult stem cell research. Personally, though, I think I'd relent on embryonic stem cell research before I would on regular abortion.

BBJynne wrote:I don't know what it is.

but if it doesn't hurt anyone I'm all for it.
(or at least if the people being hurt aren't seriously harmed and that they are volunteers and aware of the risk)

Embryonic stem cell research, to which Recon is referring, is a process in which a human embryo is killed and harvested for embryonic stem cells, which help us to better understand diseases like cancer. Theoretically speaking, embryonic stem cell research could cure cancer, but then, theoretically speaking, so can blood stem cell research, which makes use of the placenta, umbilical cord, and other things normally thrown in the garbage to get a slightly different type of stem cell without any killing of anything. I'm personally also not against embryonic stem cell research conducted on animals, since we kill grown animals for food anyway.

CivBase wrote:Your body is made up of trillions of cells, each with a designated use (muscle, skin, organs, nerves, ect). Stem cells, however, are cells that have no clearly defined purpose. As a blastosis develops, the cells mulitply and are assigned 'jobs' to carry out. Eventualy, this forms the human body. They are typicaly found in the spinal cords of humans. While they can be extracted from adults, they slightly more useful when extracted from an unborn embryo or fetus. The problem is that it kills the embryo or fetus. Because of this, hospitals are left with taking stem cells from aborted fetus and embryos. However, many view abortion as immoral (including me), and feel that it should be outlawed.
I'm all for stem cell research... just not from abortions.

But, again, the placenta and umbilical cord are rich in blood stem cells.

BBJynne wrote:does it directly kill the babies or provide a reason for their deaths?

or is it just using already dead ones?

A bit of all three. Some want embryonic stem cell research to be fully legal, which is to say, allow scientists to proactively obtain living embryos and harvest their stem cells. Others say that embryonic stem cell research is a legitimizing abortion. And others are trying to make due with what they've got. But since we can just conduct blood stem cell research, there isn't much point to using embryonic stem cells unless we happen to have them handy.

BBJynne wrote:or is it just using already dead ones?

They typicaly use dead ones that were aborted, and many view abortion as wrong.
If it died and was not aborted and the stem cells can still be used and the parents agreed to donate it to science, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to do that.[/quote]

CivBase wrote:It kills it if they take it from the live embryo/fetus, so yes. And what do you mean by provide a reason for their deaths?

He means do some say that people legitimize abortion because of embryonic stem cell research, and to some degree, some people do.

CivBase wrote:They typicaly use dead ones that were aborted, and many view abortion as wrong.
If it died and was not aborted and the stem cells can still be used and the parents agreed to donate it to science, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to do that.

Completely agree.

BBJynne wrote:but if it was aborted anyway then why not use it?

but if a baby was killed specifically to stem cell research then... no

Because we don't believe babies should be aborted. Embryonic stem cell research gives certain pro-choice people a "reason" why it should be legal.

CivBase wrote:Well, I think abortion is wrong. If it is aborted, then I suppose you can use it, but I don't think they should be aborted in the first place.

Exactly.

Don Corleone wrote:well what if it has a disease or sumtin along those lines that would most likely kil it anyway?
wouldnt it be better to abort it and then actually use it?

Chances are, if it had some kind of disease, the stem cells would be unusable anyway. Now answer me this, if you had some kind of strange disease, would you want to be killed? If you were retarded, blind and deaf, maybe you only had one leg, would you want to be killed? If you had all four of those, even then, would you want to be killed?

PiElord wrote:I see your logic Don, but wouldn't the disease affect the cells?

Answer the same questions I asked Don, then.

Don Corleone wrote:its possible.
but maybe not.
But lets say it was just very sickly,like having a weak immune system forever or something.so many possibilities...

If you had a weak immune system, would want to be killed? The point is, Don, there is always a chance of survival, even with some of the worst diseases, so before you say that it should be ok to abort babies that might have a disease, question on whether you would choose to die rather than have a disease.

CivBase wrote:If it's already died from the disease, sure. But otherwise, no because the hosptials can still cure it.
Besides, how often does a baby contract a deadly disease (as in, 5-days-to-live deadly) while still in the mother?
And at this point, most of the cells usualy have a set purpose for the disease to have anything to take hold of, so the stem cells probably won't be any more useful than a regular adults anyways. Remember, you can get stem cells from an adult and he/she will still live just fine.

Also a fair point.

PiElord wrote:Again, I said I saw your logic, but that just wasn't the best example.

Now, speaking of pig fetuses, do those have usable stem cells?

Yes, but they aren't as effective as our own. Kind of like how testing something on a pig isn't quite as accurate as testing it on a human.

Don Corleone wrote:thats a good point.
and they regenerate i think too.
itd be a cell drive lol
@civ

CivBase wrote:@ pie
Yes, but they aren't the same as human ones...

Indeed. They are probably the closest we can get, other than maybe primates.

KristallNacht wrote:Not sure what religious organization is providing you with these lies, but they really can't do any of that....

While I don't know about some of the things Civ listed, fetuses become self-aware in a few weeks, but aren't capable of feeling pain until the third trimester.

KristallNacht wrote:And yes, stem cell research can be done without aborted fetuses or even test tube fetuses. But still many consider the two concepts of Abortion and Stem Cells linked, which they aren't.

Just assume we're talking about embryonic stem cell research, because both Civ and I have been pretty clear that we are in favor of adult stem cell research, and I have been clear on my favor towards blood stem cell research as well.

CivBase wrote:That would be my health teacher.

Week 13: Baby can start to move and eyes begin to develop
Week 14: Hormone effects
Week 15: All major organs are developed. Baby can hear
Week 22: Taste buds develop

For reference, the fetal stage starts at week 11.

CivBase wrote:Like I said, I'm all for stem cell research, so long as it's not demanding aborted fetuses. So, have you guys given up on trying to rectify abortion?

It does seem like the topic has moved from abortion to stem cell research.

CivBase wrote:
That would be my health teacher.

Week 13: Baby can start to move and eyes begin to develop
Week 14: Hormone effects
Week 15: All major organs are developed. Baby can hear
Week 22: Taste buds develop

Good thing you can't abort after 12 weeks, right? lol

[quote="CivBase"]

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:So, have you guys given up on trying to rectify abortion?

not at all.

How about this situation. What if a child is to be born with a severe case of mental illness (like downs syndrome) and would very likely live a very limited, walled in life style and likely amount to nothing in the long run. Is it so horrible to end the misery before it begins?

What if a child is to be born with severe deformities such as missing limbs? Is it so horrible to abort then? Do you understand the costs of taking care of either of the two kinds of children? A family could go bankrupt taking care of such a child, and if one was put up for adoption, it would very likely never be taken in.

what if a couple has intercourse for the specific reason of donating an embryo to science? The embryo was never meant to live in the first place. Just because the couple had sex, they must immediately treat the microscopic result as a human being?

Such an embryo never even had the potential to live, as it was created only for the purpose of dying.

Even for a regular child, adoption is not always a good route to take. In Russia, countless children are shoved into orphanages and never adopted. They are stuck in these places all their lives, until they finally reach adulthood and are put out on the street with no guidance.

This is what you call a human? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Embryo,_8_cells.jpg
It is a mere grouping of cells capable of no thoughts, feelings, or senses. It is NOT human. That is like calling a sperm cell human, And i can't even begin to imagine how many of those we all kill every day.

The human race is over populated as it is anyways.

ReconToaster wrote:not at all.

How about this situation.

Oh great, another one of those 1-in-a-million situations that you so called "pro-choice" advocates are soo good at making.

ReconToaster wrote:What if a child is to be born with a severe case of mental illness (like downs syndrome) and would very likely live a very limited, walled in life style and likely amount to nothing in the long run. Is it so horrible to end the misery before it begins?

I don't know about you, but wouldn't you rather live with an illness that limits your life instead of not living at all? I know I would.

ReconToaster wrote:What if a child is to be born with severe deformities such as missing limbs? Is it so horrible to abort then?

Same answer as before.

ReconToaster wrote:Do you understand the costs of taking care of either of the two kinds of children?

Two comebacks to this:
[list=1][*]Do you understand that the cost of murder, religiously speaking, is an eternity spent in hell being tortured? That's much more than any monitary value.
[*]Well, there are safe havens that they can take the babies to. Just take a small trip to either Iowa or Nebraska and drop it off at a hospital.

ReconToaster wrote:A family could go bankrupt taking care of such a child, and if one was put up for adoption, it would very likely never be taken in.

I can disagree with that. My health teacher has adopted five kids, each with a mental disability. There are people out there that actualy look for that kind of stuff specificly.

ReconToaster wrote:what if a couple has intercourse for the specific reason of donating an embryo to science?

Then I'm against it.

ReconToaster wrote:The embryo was never meant to live in the first place. Just because the couple had sex, they must immediately treat the microscopic result as a human being?

Well, first off, it takes a while for those two cells to turn into a blastosis. A few weeks at that. Humans don't have the right to decide wheather soemthing was meant to live.

ReconToaster wrote:Such an embryo never even had the potential to live, as it was created only for the purpose of dying.

If left alone by humans, though, it would have had very great potential.

ReconToaster wrote:Even for a regular child, adoption is not always a good route to take. In Russia, countless children are shoved into orphanages and never adopted.

You mean the people that just give up their kids because they are girls? Yah, that's going to prove your point really well...

ReconToaster wrote:They are stuck in these places all their lives, until they finally reach adulthood and are put out on the street with no guidance.

Once again, better than not living at all.

ReconToaster wrote:This is what you call a human? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Embryo,_8_cells.jpg

Why yes, yes it is. What difference does it make? Senior, adult, teen, child, baby, fetus, embryo, blastosis, zygote. They're all living, growing humans. Why is it so hard for you to see this? All they are are different stages of development.

ReconToaster wrote:It is a mere grouping of cells capable of no thoughts, feelings, or senses. It is NOT human.

A baby doesn't utalize any of these, is it a human?
What is thought? Messages sent from your brain to the rest of your body. What is feeling? Interpritations of these thoughts. What are sences? Physical interpritations of your surroundings.

ReconToaster wrote:That is like calling a sperm cell human

I knew this was coming. A sperm cell has no potential of becoming a human. Not until it is fertalized, before it is 'chosen' to be brought into the world, is it a human

ReconToaster wrote:And i can't even begin to imagine how many of those we all kill every day.

*stares at recon blankly*

ReconToaster wrote:The human race is over populated as it is anyways.

Once again, I'm going to be very mean on this subject.
*looks around for KrAzY*
If you think the human race is over populated, you can be the first to go. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

Oh great, another one of those 1-in-a-million situations that you so called "pro-choice" advocates are soo good at making.

Ummmm.... my cousin has severe downs syndrome. It's not one in a million.

I don't know about you, but wouldn't you rather live with an illness that limits your life instead of not living at all?

Again, my cousin has about the same comprehension as a 3 year old, and will never improve. His physical development is also very stunted. He will probably live with his parents until he becomes an adult and is put in some sort of home where he will be stuck for the rest of his life. Were it my choice, I would not have brought such a sad and terrible life into existence.

[

Do you understand that the cost of murder, religiously speaking, is an eternity spent in hell being tortured?

This only makes you sound dumb Civ.

Humans don't have the right to decide wheather soemthing was meant to live.

Sounds to me like you're doing that right now, deciding that every embryo is meant to live.

If left alone by humans, though, it would have had very great potential.

were it not for human intervention, it really would not exist.

You mean the people that just give up their kids because they are girls? Yah, that's going to prove your point really well...

hmmm... someone's a dick. I wonder how all those male Russian orphans would feel about that statement.

Why is it so hard for you to see this?

I see that they are classified as human. Thing is, I don't give a shit. I do not believe that just because something has the name "human" stamped on it's hypothetical forehead, it is somehow extra special. Our poop is human feces, but it's still just poop.

A baby doesn't utalize any of these, is it a human?

I'm pretty sure babies exhibit both cognitive senses as well as affection towards their mother. My nephew is less than a year old, and he cries whenever he is far from his mother. Babies sustain at least a very basic thought process. Embryo(s)and fetuses do not.

A sperm cell has no potential of becoming a human.

It's potential to become human is its potential to be fertilized.

*stares at recon blankly*

Oh yes, because masturbation is a sin. (even though the story of Onan was mis interpreted and had nothing to do with that.) Even through use of the missionary position, millions of sperm cells are killed.

If you think the human race is over populated, you can be the first to go. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

How very Christian of you; to suggest death upon another. But isn't suicide a sin?

ReconToaster wrote:

If you think the human race is over populated, you can be the first to go. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

How very Christian of you; to suggest death upon another. But isn't suicide a sin?

Huh, aren't you making a Christmas list in another thread...

PiElord wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:

If you think the human race is over populated, you can be the first to go. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

How very Christian of you; to suggest death upon another. But isn't suicide a sin?

Huh, aren't you making a Christmas list in another thread...

Copied from my statement on said thread:

Actually, If you look into it, you'll find that Christmas actually originated from Celtic festivals (wherein "magic" pine trees were brought into houses to protect people from the evil winter spirits.) that occurred around the same time of the year as christmas. The christians modified their religion to help encourage such people to convert. Jesus was born in spring.

Either way, christmas is more of an economic holiday than anything.

ReconToaster wrote:

PiElord wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:

If you think the human race is over populated, you can be the first to go. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

How very Christian of you; to suggest death upon another. But isn't suicide a sin?

Huh, aren't you making a Christmas list in another thread...

Copied from my statement on said thread:

Actually, If you look into it, you'll find that Christmas actually originated from Celtic festivals (wherein "magic" pine trees were brought into houses to protect people from the evil winter spirits.) that occurred around the same time of the year as christmas. The christians modified their religion to help encourage such people to convert. Jesus was born in spring.

Either way, christmas is more of an economic holiday than anything.

Copied from my previous statement on said thread:
And now you're making excuses.
Fuck Toaster, just look at the name.
"Christmas"
Whether you like it or not, it's a religious holiday, and you're an atheist.

I just think it's ironic that you're the one always talking about how Christians are either retarded, or hyppocrits.

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:Oh great, another one of those 1-in-a-million situations that you so called "pro-choice" advocates are soo good at making.

Ummmm.... my cousin has severe downs syndrome. It's not one in a million.

I'm sorry, one-in-a-thousand.

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:I don't know about you, but wouldn't you rather live with an illness that limits your life instead of not living at all?

Again, my cousin has about the same comprehension as a 3 year old, and will never improve. His physical development is also very stunted. He will probably live with his parents until he becomes an adult and is put in some sort of home where he will be stuck for the rest of his life. Were it my choice, I would not have brought such a sad and terrible life into existence.

But if you were him, would you rather be killed?

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:Do you understand that the cost of murder, religiously speaking, is an eternity spent in hell being tortured?

This only makes you sound dumb Civ.

Maybe to an athiest.

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:Humans don't have the right to decide wheather soemthing was meant to live die.

Sounds to me like you're doing that right now, deciding that every embryo is meant to live.

Allow me to rephrase that for those of you who are picky.

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:If left alone by humans, though, it would have had very great potential.

were it not for human intervention, it really would not exist.

You treat life as though it is some machine you constructed. Without your parents intervention, you would not exist, but how would you feel if they decided to donate you to science and kill you?

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:You mean the people that just give up their kids because they are girls? Yah, that's going to prove your point really well...

hmmm... someone's a dick. I wonder how all those male Russian orphans would feel about that statement.

Well, there's going to be males of course, but a majority is female. I didn't say they were all girls. Do I need to clarify everything I say?

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:Why is it so hard for you to see this?

I see that they are classified as human. Thing is, I don't give a shit.

Of course not.

ReconToaster wrote:I do not believe that just because something has the name "human" stamped on it's hypothetical forehead, it is somehow extra special. Our poop is human feces, but it's still just poop.

Names mean nothing. But why it's given a name is what makes it what it is.
our poop won't become a human, idiot.

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:A baby doesn't utalize any of these, is it a human?

I'm pretty sure babies exhibit both cognitive senses as well as affection towards their mother. My nephew is less than a year old, and he cries whenever he is far from his mother. Babies sustain at least a very basic thought process. Embryo(s)and fetuses do not.

And where do you get this fact from? Have you ever wondered why a baby cries when it's away from its mother?
So just because something thinks, it's human? This seems to contradict every single thing you've told me in the past few pages.

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:A sperm cell has no potential of becoming a human.

It's potential to become human is its potential to be fertilized.

But that potential is nothing without direct human intervention. So it has no potential when left on its own.

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:*stares at recon blankly*

Oh yes, because masturbation is a sin. (even though the story of Onan was mis interpreted and had nothing to do with that.) Even in intercourse, millions of sperm cells are killed.

Not that, I just think you're sick.

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:If you think the human race is over populated, you can be the first to go. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

How very Christian of you; to suggest death upon another.

Why thankyou. I do my best.

ReconToaster wrote:But isn't suicide a sin?

Yes it is a sin. But then again, you're not a Christian anyways, so what do you have to worry about?

ReconToaster wrote:Actually, If you look into it, you'll find that Christmas actually originated from Celtic festivals (wherein "magic" pine trees were brought into houses to protect people from the evil winter spirits.) that occurred around the same time of the year as christmas. The christians modified their religion to help encourage such people to convert. Jesus was born in spring.

Either way, christmas is more of an economic holiday than anything.

The gift giving was derived from Saint Nicholas.
The day was derived from Jesus.
The tree was apparently derived from the celtics.
So have fun with your tree celebration...

but how would you feel if they decided to donate you to science and kill you?

I wouldn't think much of it, as I would be at a microscopic level, incapable of thought.

So just because something thinks, it's human?

At least something of thought is conscious.

ReconToaster wrote:

but how would you feel if they decided to donate you to science and kill you?

I wouldn't think much of it, as I would be at a microscopic level, incapable of thought.

Thankyou soo much for that wonderful glimps into your mind.

ReconToaster wrote:

So just because something thinks, it's human?

At least something of thought is conscious.

So having concious makes it bad to kill?

Thankyou soo much for that wonderful glimps into your mind.

It sounds as if you are attempting to insinuate something, but I can't quite grasp what. I apologize for giving you a very logical answer. If my parents were to tell me that they almost aborted me, I would not be affected. I would understand why they would have considered it, but also understand that they do not regret their decision, and that they love me.

ReconToaster wrote:

Thankyou soo much for that wonderful glimps into your mind.

It sounds as if you are attempting to insinuate something, but I can't quite grasp what. I apologize for giving you a very logical answer. If my parents were to tell me that they almost aborted me, I would not be affected. I would understand why they would have considered it, but also understand that they do not regret their decision, and that they love me.

Lets imagine that you could feel something at that point...
In fact, let's, just this once, imagine you're in heaven. What would you think of it?

I agree with Civ mainly because we dont have a right to take life away from someone

I mean what gives us the right to decide who lives and who dies?

and dont give me the : "its because we can"

CivBase wrote:
In fact, let's, just this once, imagine you're in heaven. What would you think of it?

Well, I assume he'd think:
"Oh shit!"
Right before St. Petey pulled the lever that dropped him into Hell.

imagine you're in heaven. What would you think of it?

I feel as if this is a trick question. One meant to 'cause me to seem an idiot by relating you "Heaven" to the place of cloud beds and angels often illustrated in fiction.

So I'd rather not answer that question, as it seems quite unstable.

If you mean to be referring to the "place of cloud beds and angels often illustrated in fiction,"; I would probably think something along the lines of "huh, I was wrong. Sucks that all the wonder I saw in the world can be muted by the existence of magic"

CivBase wrote:Well, there are safe havens that they can take the babies to. Just take a small trip to either Iowa or Nebraska and drop it off at a hospital.

not so fast

we had a special session of the legislative body to fix the law.

it's not 18 and under anymore

gotta bring them within 30 days of birth