XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics   
   XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama   
   XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,    
   lt.politics.trump   
   XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars   
   XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,   
   alt.politics.guns, alt.society.liberalism   
   XPost: alt.atheism   
   From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov   
      
   >> Hartung pretends to care about "scientific facts" in considering   
   >> abortion.   
   >>   
   >>     "Scientific fact: Life begins at conception when the egg and the   
   >> sperm join."   
   >>   
   >> This is meaningless.   
      
      
   Meaningless to someone who doesn't accept science...   
      
      
   >>  The question is not whether or not the zygote,   
   >> blastocyst, embryo or fetus is "life."  The question is not even if it   
   >> is human life.   
   >>   
   >> The question is, is it a rights-holding *person*, and if so, *what*   
   >> rights does it hold?   
      
   Asked and answered, if a gay can't prove it's a type of person with DNA   
   then why would an embryo need to prove it's a type of person to have   
   it's RIGHTS?   
      
   It's actually why the Supreme Court just reneged on it's claim that a   
   human life in a uterus is NOT a person(they lose credibility when they   
   lie). And allowed the States to decide. Because under the U.S. Supreme   
   Courts previous decision the human life in the uterus was denied their   
   RIGHT to due process to determine Life, Liberty and Property because the   
   USSC required the human life to show proof of person-hood.  Which means   
   that they have to ask this same question of Gays. And there are no Gay   
   persons according to DNA or any other measure of science. Which means if   
   they continue to deny human life in a uterus is a person without proof   
   of person-hood, they'd have to treat Gays the same. Which meant one of   
   the two contradicting rulings has to be repealed.   
      
   The lies were in conflict and the USSC OPINIONS were contradicting one   
   another. Granting rights due to being gay with no proof that there are   
   gay "persons" just as a human life in a uterus has no proof they are a   
   person and a christian who claims to have a soul makes them a different   
   type of person due to their having a soul...  None of those "entities"   
   are able to show tangible scientific proof that they are a type of   
   person other than any person who is not one of them, other than they are   
   a human life, which is the actual description of a person.  And they all   
   have their RIGHTS to life Liberty and Property NOT based on their being   
   gay or having a Soul or being inside or outside a uterus.  They are all   
   persons by way of have a unique DNA human life that has created unique   
   environmental interactions, both chemical and social.   
      
   In other words, being Gay or having a Soul or being inside a uterus   
   isn't what decides if you are a unique type of person, it's the DNA and   
   environmental "roll of the dice" that makes you a unique life.  And we   
   all have the same RIGHTS no matter the mental creations we think and   
   can't be measured... All be it, that the religious carve out of the 1st   
   Amendment does give specific RIGHTS to your belief *if it's a religion*   
   then the gay religion if one existed would have that same ability to   
   exercise their religious beliefs but they can't force me to believe in   
   their religion any more than the gays can force me to believe they are a   
   different gender from MEN OR WOMEN or to force me to accept their belief   
   that they are different. Just as I can't be forced to believe that a   
   Christian has a Soul or a human life isn't a person because it's inside   
   a uterus.   
      
   *Democrat Policy is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*   
      
   Which is why Democrat policy eventually fails.   
      
   >> Hartung cannot give a coherent and correct   
   >> answer to these questions, and never will be able to do so.  And not   
   >> only can he not answer, he can't persuade anyone that he's right.   
   >> "Because I said so" is not an answer.   
   >>   
   >> The answer to the first question may well be "no," but even if it's   
   >> "yes," that still doesn't tell us just what rights that person has,   
   >> nor how they are to be protected.  Does a human embryo have a "right"   
   >> to an AR-15?  Does it have a "right" to an attorney?   
   >>   
   >> Once one admits, as one must, that an embryo doesn't have *all* rights   
   >> that attach to a born human being, one is then tasked with identifying   
   >> just what rights it has.   
   >>   
   >> Proposition:  a developing human embryo does not have a right to   
   >> remain in a womb, the owner of which does not want the embryo there.   
   >>   
      
   Actually it's like a conjoined twin a human life, one can not kill the   
   other to escape their bodies being connected.  It's a murder of   
   convenience.   
      
   The conjoined twin being killed is being murdered.  SO when two separate   
   human lives happen to be connected they may be able to risk separation   
   if they are in agreement to take the separate risks of survival. Or they   
   need to seek the outcome one or the other wants through due process,   
   which is through the courts.   
      
   Which means that an abortion would require due process... and an   
   advocate would need to be provided to protect the RIGHTS of any and all   
   human life in the uterus.  And I have to suggest that the likely   
   decision would most often be to allow the natural separation that would   
   result in the safety of both lives and the least damage to either.   
      
      
      
   --   
   -That's karma-   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)