XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics   
   From: NoBody@nowhere.com   
      
   On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 17:05:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth   
    wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   Actually you avoided the use of the term "baby" which is the term   
   we've been discussing from the beginning.  Why is that?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)