Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: How Kammie is Scamming Her Pro-Choice Supporters
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 11:58:01 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <vfdqq9$2mc4l$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vf0rlt$3vje6$3@dont-email.me> <vf93s0$1l60r$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfbji1$289eq$2@dont-email.me> <vfbkgf$28hcd$3@dont-email.me>
 <vfcis5$2g98i$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:58:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8496981729fa66881bc38740021671a0";
	logging-data="2830485"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19PXWErdmYzOhGL4sOwPqaFPE1rHNrNmZc="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:37mJV5ilcsKT4jPNXeBgzCtdOBg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vfcis5$2g98i$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2886

On 10/24/2024 12:36 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> Oct 23, 2024 at 12:41:53 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>> . . .
> 
>>>> And yet we can pass laws against murdering adult humans without it being a
>>>> religious act. Why can't the same be done for humans in the womb?
>>>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>>> That right there is the reason.
> 
>>> As a legal concept, human life begins at birth, never in the womb. You
>>> just made the religious argument that human life begins in the womb,
>>> which is the start of pregnancy. Other religious types argue that life
>>> begins at conception.
> 
>> Ridiculous. "Murder" is whatever the legislature says it is. It needn't even
>> be a human life.
> 
> Earlier in the thread, you told us that was the legal definition of
> murder, the unlawful killing of a human being, so not foeticide.
> 
>> If your state legislature amended the penal code to say that in addition
>> to humans, murder now includes the unlawful killing of any member of
>> the species Canis familiaris, then it would be a valid law and killing
>> a dog would be murder.
> 
>> So expanding the definition of "murder" to include pre-born infants in no way
>> automatically makes the law a religious one.
> 
> Or, I dunno, they might make the crime the unlawful killing of a foetus,
> entirely skipping the appeal about the unconstitutional redefinition of
> when human life begins and have a more serious statute.

And a basis for rejecting such a law (should anyone be sane enough to 
try) would be its origins in faith rather than in provable fact.