XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"Attila" wrote in message
news:5e9kdjl9cap0g5me61r1hsiharo16ptadn@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 10:52:04 -0500, "Scout"
> in alt.abortion
> with message-id wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"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.
>
> There are many ways to give up a child for adoption.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
