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 4:58 PM, Attila wrote:   
   > On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:35:27 -0700, Bud Dickman  in   
   > alt.atheism with message-id  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Legal is all that matters.   
      
   No, that's false.  Moral precedes legal.   
      
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Yet no laws included a fetus.   
      
   You're completely wrong about that.  If you had read the article, which   
   clearly you did not and *cannot*, you would know that you're wrong.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > She has a living fetus, species human.   
      
   A human being.   
      
   > But the socio-legal term of human being (or person)   
      
   Ha ha ha!  Oh, so now it's "socio-legal", and not just legal.   
   "Socio-legal", of course, is a brand new term of your own fabrication.   
      
      
   > only applies after live birth has occurred.   
      
   No, that's false.  Human being has no legal meaning whatever.   
      
   That journal article makes crystal clear that the law in the mid 19th   
   century, when the 14th amendment was adopted, considered the fetus to be   
   a person.  It's a pity you can't read and understand the article.   
      
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   > Irrelevant.  It is legal that matters.   
      
   You have the law wrong.   
      
   >>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   > Not under the law, and that is all that matters.   
      
   No, that is not all that matters - but anyway, you have the law wrong.   
   The law *said* that the fetus is a person.  Blackmun simply threw that   
   in the garbage.  He was wrong.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   > No.   
      
   Yes.   
      
   > There are many things a person can legally do, such as inherit,   
   > own property, be counted in a census, be a tax deduction among other   
   > things.  A fetus can do none of these.   
      
   That's what Scalia called a "walking-around person".  Not all persons   
   are walking around persons.   
      
   The fetus is a person, morally, and until the law was perverted, legally.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)