XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: NoBody@nowhere.com   
      
   On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 12:33:51 -0500, "Scout"   
    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.   
   >   
   >   
      
   That's the rhealm in which he lives I'm afraid.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)