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 1:50 PM, Dutch wrote:   
   > On 7/25/2018 1:30 PM, Rupert wrote:   
   >> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 10:19:35 PM UTC+2, Dutch wrote:   
   >>> On 7/25/2018 12:48 PM, Rupert wrote:   
   >>>> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:44:34 PM UTC+2, Dutch wrote:   
   >>>>> On 7/24/2018 12:10 AM, Attila wrote:   
   >>>>>>> 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 any more than   
   >>>>>> an acorn is a tree or an egg is a chicken.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You can't spend a million dollar cheque until you cash it, that   
   >>>>> doesn't   
   >>>>> mean that if you burn it you haven't thrown away a million dollars.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Better analogy would be, you have a contract in your hand which   
   >>>> guarantees you a million dollars if you go through the burdens of   
   >>>> pregnancy and childbirth. So if you decide to burn the contract, it   
   >>>> might mean the transaction just wasn't looking all that good to you...   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't like that metaphor as much. It muddies the issue more than   
   >>> clarifies it because it introduces complications like the difficulty of   
   >>> pregnancy, which are not apt to simply waiting for a cheque to become   
   >>> cashable.   
   >>>   
   >>> My point was to show that to hang one's hat on a definition like   
   >>> "person" misses the more important issue of the real value of a thing.   
   >>>   
   >>> If one's argument is that prior to birth a human has no (or limited)   
   >>> rights then just say that.   
   >>   
   >> Well, even someone with all the rights that you or I have, still   
   >> doesn't have the right to use another's body against her will.   
   >   
   > I consider that a reasonable argument.   
      
   It's not.  The woman might not like that she's pregnant, but that does   
   not give her the right to murder the developing baby.   
      
   A better analogy is with with trespassers or squatters.  Such persons   
   are using your property "against your will", but you may not murder them   
   to regain control of your property.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)