XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 8/27/2024 2:11 PM, Just Wondering wrote:   
   > On 8/27/2024 2:03 PM, Attila wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:35:03 -0600, Just Wondering   
   >>  in alt.abortion with message-id   
   >>  wrote:   
      
   {snip}   
      
   >>>>> The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses   
   >>>>> are unborn humans.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves   
   >>>> that.  The issue is at what point an individual human being   
   >>>> comes into existence.  Historically it has never been prior   
   >>>> to live birth.   
   >>>>   
   >>> Historically you are wrong.   
   >>   
   >> The laws involving a fetus and a born child prove you wrong.   
   >> After birth a child can inherit, be a tax deduction, be   
   >> counted in a census, own property, be a citizen under the   
   >> proper laws, and need a passport, again under certain laws   
   >> in certain locations among other things.  None of this can   
   >> apply to a fetus.   
   >>   
   > There's your problem.  You write of statutes.  I speak of   
   > biological reality.   
      
   There is no "biological reality" about whether a fetus is a person. And   
   personhood, not "human life" or "unborn human" is the debate.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)