XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"Attila" wrote in message
news:vbrudj1p6oln26jopatspbu09m209njbi2@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 09:34:18 -0500, "Scout"
> in alt.abortion
> with message-id wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
