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   
   From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov   
      
   On 7/11/22 12:55 PM, Scout wrote:   
   > 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.  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?   
      
   How do you think RIGHTS are endowed to a HUMAN LIFE?   
      
   Do they have to be written in ink on a paper by other humans? Is that   
   how all RIGHTS are created? There are no RIGHTS which have NOT yet been   
   enumerated? That can't be correct.   
      
      
   Does there have to be a Government doing it and if so, can it be   
   Communists or a King/Monarchy or does it allow for any group to decide   
   what YOUR RIGHT to "human life" and liberty is?   
      
   If that's OK with you, then the Confederacy in the Southern States by   
   Democrats that said that a BLACK SLAVE was not a "human life" and had no   
   RIGHT to LIBERTY and the BLACK LIFE was the property of the owner from   
   conception to death because it wasn't a human life or person.   
      
   How am I doing so far... the owner could abort the baby of the slave   
   woman because it was the owners choice to abort it since Democrats   
   believed that a Black "zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus is" not a   
   human life, so Democrats want to roll the concept of human life back   
   from being "all human life" to being human life they define as " a   
   *person* " so that Democrats can again make the decision on what is a   
   human life...  because it worked out so well for Democrats the last time   
   they tried to decide that and it started a civil war and then started   
   the KKK and then the eugenics of aborting the Black zygote, blastocyst,   
   embryo or fetus' because they aren't life of any kind.   
      
      
   How am I doing so far... are you able to decide which government and   
   which life is able to have their RIGHTS handed-out, based on the   
   Democrats vast knowledge and positive experiences in making those   
   decisions for the rest of us it just makes sense that Democrats should   
   decide who and who is NOT a "PERSON" ?  Doesn't it????????  ;)   
      
   On the other hand the different DNA and the different Chemical and   
   social connections of the fertilized egg starts making that "human life"   
   that began at conception a "person" because the idea of person-hood is a   
   distinct human life with a distinct physical DNA and a chemical   
   environment and social interaction as with the mothers emotional   
   hormones and that personal bond that is created and the tears of the   
   mother and the excitement and adrenaline and foods and cravings and the   
   mothers feeling the baby moving and the sound vibrations that sooth the   
   fetus and fear that also effects that fetus. And the language of   
   instinct, which is passed either by chemistry/emotion or by DNA.   
      
   All that makes a dynamic human life that reacts differently than others   
   and that is a "personality" and that personality is what makes that   
   human life a person and it all started at the moment of conception.   
      
   Which means ALL HUMAN LIFE has RIGHTS.   
      
   Among these are LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY(which is the pursuit of   
   happiness) and they can not be denied without due process.   
      
      
   *Amendment V*   
   ...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, *without due process*   
   of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just   
   compensation.   
      
   *Amendment XIII*   
   Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except as a*   
   *punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted*   
   , shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their   
   jurisdiction.   
      
   *Amendment XIV*   
   Section 1.   
   ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,   
   *without due process of law* ; nor deny to any person within its   
   jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.   
      
      
      
      
      
   All those limit government power, by requiring *due process* but NON   
   suggest that the government is the creator of those RIGHTS or that the   
   government has the power to allow the guilty to deny their RIGHTS   
   without first engaging in due process. You can't repeal your RIGHTS, it   
   would require an amendment to the Constitution, you can choose not to   
   exercise your RIGHTS, but if the Constitution requires the government to   
   respect your RIGHTS then even you can't give the government the   
   permission to violate your RIGHTS, you can't supersede the direct   
   Constitutional mandate on the GOVERNMENT with your personal OK, because   
   the government can't break the laws and you don't personally have the   
   power to allow the government to violate the Constitution.   
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   -That's karma-   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)