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:mg9edjdt6thjia329fbkaemvnevtl2u72c@4ax.com...   
   > On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 12:33:51 -0500, "Scout"   
   >  in alt.abortion   
   > with message-id  wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>"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.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Not at all.   
   >   
   > This entire argument boils down to the question of who has   
   > the primary rights when a woman is pregnant, the woman or   
   > the fetus/baby/whatever.  A choice must be made as it is an   
   > all or nothing situation with no possible compromise which   
   > satisfies both sides.  The pregnancy is terminated, or it is   
   > not.   
      
   Yep, and unless you're going to claim a baby has NO rights until after being   
   born.... then at some point the rights of the fetus to exist and continue   
   exist supersede those of the mother.   
      
   Oops, you just became someone that is called anti-abortion.   
      
   Myself, I accept early abortion and oppose late term abortion (in most   
   cases) and somewhere in the middle I'm undecided.   
      
   Yet... I'm told I'm wrong because I don't support every abortion, even that   
   which might occur during birth where the baby is more than advanced enough   
   to survive on it's own. Then told that I'm the fanatic.   
      
   So it you are going to force it to be a binary choice... innocent life would   
   seem to prevail in the bulk of the cases.   
      
   When you refuse to compromise.. then that's what you get.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)