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.