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:tsohdj5g6e1bgkfl3oc2pdorl86c3pleda@4ax.com...   
   > On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:25:49 -0500, "Scout"   
   >  in alt.abortion   
   > with message-id  wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>"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.   
   >>   
   > I have no idea what "double standard" you are talking about.   
      
   And there it is.. denial of what has already been written by you.   
      
   " It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! "   
   Willy Wonka   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)