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:b3mgdjpmb0s50qes6i0235av6thnj5h7ms@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2024 08:33:18 -0400, NoBody
> in alt.abortion with message-id
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Clearly not.
Clearly you do, because you showed you do, and then confirmed it.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
