XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.christian.religion, alt.christ   
   et.christianlife   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,   
   alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.buddhism, alt.religiontaoism, alt.current-affairs.muslim   
   From: bd@phyl.con   
      
   On 7/25/2018 1:27 PM, Attila wrote:   
   > On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:20:10 -0700, Bud Dickman  in   
   > alt.atheism with message-id  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 7/24/2018 12:10 AM, Attila wrote:   
   >>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 19:41:56 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty   
   >>>  in alt.atheism with message-id   
   >>> <9xP4D.453288$br4.63128@fx34.iad> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 7/21/2018 7:47 AM, David Hartung wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> you   
   >>>>>> have presented no reasoned argument that the "human life" and   
   >>>>>> "person-hood" are two different things.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> A person is an individual human that has environmental experiences.   
   >>>   
   >>> That has been born alive.   
   >>   
   >> Wrong.   
   >   
   > Not according to the applicable laws,   
      
   This isn't about the law.  Personhood is first and foremost a moral   
   dimension.   
      
   However, the Harvard journal article that is at the heart of this thread   
   does a very good job of explaining that in the mid 19th century, when   
   the 14th amendment was written, the *legal* sense of "person" absolutely   
   extended to living not-yet-born human beings.   
      
   You, of course, are flip-flopping back and forth between "human being"   
   and "person".  While people might argue about when personhood is   
   established, there can be no dispute that a pregnant woman is carrying a   
   living human being inside her womb.   
      
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Someone on a deserted island is still a person without any other persons   
   >>>> around. A person hooked to a Dialysis machine to keep them alive is a   
   >>>> person NOT a parasite and NOT a part of the machine, they are an   
   >>>> individual person.   
   >>>   
   >>> All have been born alive.   
   >>   
   >> That isn't what made them persons.   
   >   
   > They do not qualify under the law before this occurs.   
      
   The law isn't what establishes a moral person.   
      
   >>>>   
   >>>> As is a human life inside a uterus where Alcohol fetal syndrome can   
   >>>> change the person by way of our interaction.   
   >>>   
   >>> But while the species is human it is not a yet a human being.   
   >>   
   >> It is.   
   >   
   > No, it isn't.   
      
   Absolutely it is.   
      
   >>>>   
   >>>> There are other things that also make that human life a unique "person"   
   >>> >from conception.   
   >>>   
   >>> Until it has survived live birth it is not yet a person   
   >>   
   >> That's false. Birth is merely a change of venue.   
   >   
   > If there is no live birth no person ever existed.   
      
   False.  The developing baby is a person.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)