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 7/26/2018 11:23 PM, Dutch wrote:   
   > On 7/26/2018 12:01 PM, Bud Dickman wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > A being growing inside your body is hardly equivalent to somebody   
   > camping in your back forty.   
      
   They are fully equivalent.  Both are using something you view as your   
   "property", and you don't like it.  What you may legally and ethically   
   do to put a stop to the trespass is not entirely up to you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)