Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: How Kammie is Scamming Her Pro-Choice Supporters
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:04:28 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <vfdr6c$2mdl6$6@dont-email.me>
References: <vf0rlt$3vje6$3@dont-email.me> <vfbkgf$28hcd$3@dont-email.me> <vfcis5$2g98i$1@dont-email.me> <vfdqq9$2mc4l$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:04:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8cde9e1044a00b73f87ade7b04e7e831";
	logging-data="2832038"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+nE9ts9a9AJS6/8rhVCmgx"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FwdWQb/xT36iHeY9+ad6cj9ONgM=
Bytes: 2923

On Oct 24, 2024 at 8:58:01 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> 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.

Faith in what?