XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Attila"  wrote in message   
   news:1av1djl7ib5dv5dlqda6tunpr1bu2j9shc@4ax.com...   
   > On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 16:54:18 -0500, "Scout"   
   >  in alt.abortion   
   > with message-id  wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>"Chris Engstrom"  wrote in message   
   >>news:FaHzO.87673$FUV7.55798@fx15.iad...   
   >>> 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?   
   >>>   
   >>> Because neither a developing fetus nor an embryo is a "baby." And   
   >>> neither   
   >>> one is a person.   
   >>   
   >>So then if you punch a pregnant woman in the belly and cause a miscarriage   
   >>then it's just simple assault and wasn't really murder?   
   >   
   > The laws in effect under RvW took that into account.  Any   
   > laws defining the killing of a fetus as murder specifically   
   > excluded a woman getting an abortion.   
      
   Which only proves my point.. otherwise why would an exclusionary condition   
   be necessary?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)