XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 8/28/2024 4:15 AM, NoBody wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   There is no biological reality about whether a fetus is a baby.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)