Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vfe3ov$2o99m$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 14:30:54 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 48 Message-ID: <vfe3ov$2o99m$3@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> <vfdr6c$2mdl6$6@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 20:30:55 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8496981729fa66881bc38740021671a0"; logging-data="2893110"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Tk5FXqKmOvJfucWXr9rBU+DhvVEM6/0s=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:iTgn9enYM+JjNY3E+oMOjVC4h+o= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <vfdr6c$2mdl6$6@dont-email.me> Bytes: 3252 On 10/24/2024 12:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > 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? Faith that what's being advocated is transcendently right and good.