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:udnhdjlj6rs7jehggpvbgmpdc9bc64up8b@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:32:04 -0500, "Scout"
> in alt.abortion
> with message-id wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Attila" wrote in message
>>news:7o2hdjtgfbm88lbebpsd9196be77d5j39r@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 12:44:13 -0500, "Scout"
>>> in alt.abortion
>>> with message-id wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"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.
>>>
>>> Why should the rights of the potential individual exceed the
>>> rights of the existing individual?
>>
>>Because their existence is no longer a matter of potential but of physical
>>fact.. specifically the point where they could survive outside the mother.
>
> Fine. Remove it and let someone else take care of it.
Sorry, but you are responsible for your offspring. Many well established
court rulings on that matter.
> How often do you think this happens? Do you have any actual
> numbers to back it up?
I have the abortion rates by length of pregnancy and the total number of
babies born each year.
So, yea, I kinda got a handle on the extent of the issue.
>>> How can two individuals
>>> have different rights?
>>
>>Easy, the same as you have the right to speak and I have the right to
>>speak
>>even though I might but currently unable to speak.
>
> That would be equal rights. Is the woman a slave with no
> voice in how her body is being used?
Was the sex consensual? Then you accept the consequences of your actions.
Welcome to Real LifeT
Otherwise, we might as well allow everyone to leave prison as we have no
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
