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:sg04djd7rqq89ob3sh8ap36qn2f9abamfc@4ax.com...   
   > On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 12:19:57 -0500, "Scout"   
   >  in alt.abortion   
   > with message-id  wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>"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?   
   >>   
   > That point was address in the part you clipped:   
   >   
   > "Under your scenario the local laws could define that act as   
   > murder.  It would be murder because it was legally defined   
   > as murder without addressing the "unborn human" issue. Local   
   > laws can define the killing of a dog as murder, and if the   
   > law survived court scrutiny it would be valid."   
      
   As I said.. a double standard.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)