Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Lack of capability is usually disguised by lack of interest.


arts / rec.arts.tv / Re: Pro-choicers picket Pelosi's house, claim Democrats are "complicit" in potential overhaul of Roe v. Wade

SubjectAuthor
* Re: Pro-choicers picket Pelosi's house, claim Democrats aremoviePig
`* Re: Pro-choicers picket Pelosi's house, claim Democrats aremoviePig
 `* Re: Pro-choicers picket Pelosi's house, claim Democrats aremoviePig
  `- Re: Pro-choicers picket Pelosi's house, claim Democrats aremoviePig

1
Re: Pro-choicers picket Pelosi's house, claim Democrats are "complicit" in potential overhaul of Roe v. Wade

<3kTgK.17224$j0D5.6890@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=142560&group=rec.arts.tv#142560

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers picket Pelosi's house, claim Democrats are
"complicit" in potential overhaul of Roe v. Wade
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <t5gd3d$dlr$2@dont-email.me>
<atropos-2A7DC5.10071615052022@news.giganews.com>
<t5rfu1$ubl$1@dont-email.me>
<atropos-69D0E5.11401015052022@news.giganews.com>
<t5rocs$oer$1@dont-email.me> <3sGdnW5KYbU-Thz_nZ2dnUU7-S2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<n2ugK.3336$6y5f.2098@fx40.iad>
<bN2dnZOeZPCILR__nZ2dnUU7-R9QAAAA@giganews.com>
<IcAgK.60137$qMI1.6708@fx96.iad>
<goydnfCIdtdgSB__nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hLAgK.5333$tTK.186@fx97.iad>
<I-2dnVRWVKtnQx__nZ2dnUU7-YtQAAAA@giganews.com>
<7tEgK.2487$VFd6.303@fx36.iad>
From: pwall...@moviepig.com (moviePig)
In-Reply-To: <7tEgK.2487$VFd6.303@fx36.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <3kTgK.17224$j0D5.6890@fx09.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 20:11:43 UTC
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 16:11:41 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3969
 by: moviePig - Tue, 17 May 2022 20:11 UTC

On 5/16/2022 11:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 5/16/2022 7:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/16/2022 6:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/16/2022 4:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 12:31 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 15, 2022 at 1:38:53 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman""
>>>>>>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should watch how a late-term abortion to see what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think:  the rending apart of a well-cooked piece of beef.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is the removal of parasitc, life threatening,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> giablastoma and plenty of other cancers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A fetus is NOT a human.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Says who?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> bonk
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You of all people are going for the religious interpretation?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Religion isn't necessarily involved.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course it is. Laws prohibiting abortion were enacted in the
>>>>>>>>> 19th
>>>>>>>>> century as civil law enforcing church doctrine
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, but someone holding the opinion that a fetus is a human
>>>>>>>> need not be
>>>>>>>> basing their personal beliefs on religion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, of course, believing a fetus is not a human results in the
>>>>>>>> absurd
>>>>>>>> scenario where an organism only achieves humanity by passing
>>>>>>>> through a vaginal
>>>>>>>> canal. The second before it emerges, it's not human. The second
>>>>>>>> after it
>>>>>>>> emerges, it's now suddenly human.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ridiculous.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why don't YOU tell us where your magical line of demarcation is, and
>>>>>>> what it signifies?  And then tell us who told you so...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm waiting for the answer to my question first.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...which is?
>>>>
>>>> Apparently it's too much trouble just to raise your eyes upthread?
>>>
>>> Is your question, "Who says a fetus isn't a human?"?  Really?
>>
>> Yep. I'd like to know who's making these pronouncements for everyone else
>> and what special authority allows them to make that claim definitively.
>
> That's easy:  NO ONE is "making these pronouncements for everyone else".
> ...

So, have I answered your question, so that you can answer mine?

Re: Pro-choicers picket Pelosi's house, claim Democrats are "complicit" in potential overhaul of Roe v. Wade

<w9UgK.17709$5gkf.10030@fx37.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=142564&group=rec.arts.tv#142564

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx37.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers picket Pelosi's house, claim Democrats are
"complicit" in potential overhaul of Roe v. Wade
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <t5gd3d$dlr$2@dont-email.me>
<I-2dnVRWVKtnQx__nZ2dnUU7-YtQAAAA@giganews.com>
<7tEgK.2487$VFd6.303@fx36.iad> <3kTgK.17224$j0D5.6890@fx09.iad>
<Gr-dnRCAYvUOnhn_nZ2dnUU7-UWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: pwall...@moviepig.com (moviePig)
In-Reply-To: <Gr-dnRCAYvUOnhn_nZ2dnUU7-UWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <w9UgK.17709$5gkf.10030@fx37.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 21:08:44 UTC
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 17:08:41 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4297
 by: moviePig - Tue, 17 May 2022 21:08 UTC

On 5/17/2022 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On May 17, 2022 at 1:11:41 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/16/2022 11:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 5/16/2022 7:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/16/2022 6:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 4:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 12:31 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 2022 at 1:38:53 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman""
>>>>>>>>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should watch how a late-term abortion to see what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think:  the rending apart of a well-cooked piece of beef.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is the removal of parasitc, life threatening,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giablastoma and plenty of other cancers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A fetus is NOT a human.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Says who?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bonk
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You of all people are going for the religious interpretation?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Religion isn't necessarily involved.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it is. Laws prohibiting abortion were enacted in the
>>>>>>>>>>> 19th
>>>>>>>>>>> century as civil law enforcing church doctrine
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but someone holding the opinion that a fetus is a human
>>>>>>>>>> need not be
>>>>>>>>>> basing their personal beliefs on religion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And, of course, believing a fetus is not a human results in the
>>>>>>>>>> absurd
>>>>>>>>>> scenario where an organism only achieves humanity by passing
>>>>>>>>>> through a vaginal
>>>>>>>>>> canal. The second before it emerges, it's not human. The second
>>>>>>>>>> after it
>>>>>>>>>> emerges, it's now suddenly human.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ridiculous.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why don't YOU tell us where your magical line of demarcation is, and
>>>>>>>>> what it signifies?  And then tell us who told you so...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm waiting for the answer to my question first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...which is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently it's too much trouble just to raise your eyes upthread?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is your question, "Who says a fetus isn't a human?"?  Really?
>>>>
>>>> Yep. I'd like to know who's making these pronouncements for everyone else
>>>> and what special authority allows them to make that claim definitively.
>>>
>>> That's easy:  NO ONE is "making these pronouncements for everyone else".
>
> Well, Burstein did, which is why I asked the question.

I took his statement to say that it's irrational to call a fetus a human
-- and your followup ("Says who?") to say that it's *entirely* rational.
In particular, I saw no allusion to the "everybody else" you purport
to defend (...though, you're right, that's what this whole thing's about).

Re: Pro-choicers picket Pelosi's house, claim Democrats are "complicit" in potential overhaul of Roe v. Wade

<ddVgK.3972$6XNb.1744@fx07.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=142572&group=rec.arts.tv#142572

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx07.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers picket Pelosi's house, claim Democrats are
"complicit" in potential overhaul of Roe v. Wade
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <t5gd3d$dlr$2@dont-email.me> <3kTgK.17224$j0D5.6890@fx09.iad>
<Gr-dnRCAYvUOnhn_nZ2dnUU7-UWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w9UgK.17709$5gkf.10030@fx37.iad>
<EbidnfgYKtImiRn_nZ2dnUU7-X2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: pwall...@moviepig.com (moviePig)
In-Reply-To: <EbidnfgYKtImiRn_nZ2dnUU7-X2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <ddVgK.3972$6XNb.1744@fx07.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:20:57 UTC
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 18:20:55 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4946
 by: moviePig - Tue, 17 May 2022 22:20 UTC

On 5/17/2022 5:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On May 17, 2022 at 2:08:41 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/17/2022 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On May 17, 2022 at 1:11:41 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/16/2022 11:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 5/16/2022 7:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 6:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 4:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 12:31 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 2022 at 1:38:53 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman""
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should watch how a late-term abortion to see what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think:  the rending apart of a well-cooked piece of beef.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is the removal of parasitc, life threatening,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giablastoma and plenty of other cancers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A fetus is NOT a human.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Says who?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bonk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You of all people are going for the religious interpretation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Religion isn't necessarily involved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it is. Laws prohibiting abortion were enacted in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 19th
>>>>>>>>>>>>> century as civil law enforcing church doctrine
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but someone holding the opinion that a fetus is a human
>>>>>>>>>>>> need not be
>>>>>>>>>>>> basing their personal beliefs on religion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And, of course, believing a fetus is not a human results in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> absurd
>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario where an organism only achieves humanity by passing
>>>>>>>>>>>> through a vaginal
>>>>>>>>>>>> canal. The second before it emerges, it's not human. The second
>>>>>>>>>>>> after it
>>>>>>>>>>>> emerges, it's now suddenly human.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ridiculous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't YOU tell us where your magical line of demarcation is, and
>>>>>>>>>>> what it signifies?  And then tell us who told you so...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm waiting for the answer to my question first.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...which is?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apparently it's too much trouble just to raise your eyes upthread?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is your question, "Who says a fetus isn't a human?"?  Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep. I'd like to know who's making these pronouncements for everyone else
>>>>>> and what special authority allows them to make that claim definitively.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's easy:  NO ONE is "making these pronouncements for everyone else".
>>>
>>> Well, Burstein did, which is why I asked the question.
>>
>> I took his statement to say that it's irrational to call a fetus a human
>
> I took his statement to say what he actually said: a declarative statement of
> fact that a fetus is not a human.

And which one of the many connotations of 'human' did you ascertain?

>> -- and your followup ("Says who?") to say that it's *entirely* rational.
>
> And my followup ("Says who?") to inquire from whom this determination came and
> what qualifies that person to make such a finding.

I see. An "inquiry", and not the more usual summary disagreement...

Re: Pro-choicers picket Pelosi's house, claim Democrats are "complicit" in potential overhaul of Roe v. Wade

<sf8hK.33666$6dof.3165@fx13.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=142584&group=rec.arts.tv#142584

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx13.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers picket Pelosi's house, claim Democrats are
"complicit" in potential overhaul of Roe v. Wade
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <t5gd3d$dlr$2@dont-email.me> <w9UgK.17709$5gkf.10030@fx37.iad>
<EbidnfgYKtImiRn_nZ2dnUU7-X2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ddVgK.3972$6XNb.1744@fx07.iad>
<EqSdnUaL18DB9Rn_nZ2dnUU7-SGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: pwall...@moviepig.com (moviePig)
In-Reply-To: <EqSdnUaL18DB9Rn_nZ2dnUU7-SGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <sf8hK.33666$6dof.3165@fx13.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 15:27:20 UTC
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 11:27:19 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5309
 by: moviePig - Wed, 18 May 2022 15:27 UTC

On 5/17/2022 11:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On May 17, 2022 at 3:20:55 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/17/2022 5:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On May 17, 2022 at 2:08:41 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2022 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On May 17, 2022 at 1:11:41 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 11:17 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 7:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 6:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 4:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 12:31 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 2022 at 1:38:53 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman""
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should watch how a late-term abortion to see what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think:  the rending apart of a well-cooked piece of beef.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is the removal of parasitc, life threatening,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giablastoma and plenty of other cancers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A fetus is NOT a human.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Says who?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bonk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You of all people are going for the religious interpretation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Religion isn't necessarily involved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it is. Laws prohibiting abortion were enacted in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 19th
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century as civil law enforcing church doctrine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but someone holding the opinion that a fetus is a human
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basing their personal beliefs on religion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, of course, believing a fetus is not a human results in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absurd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario where an organism only achieves humanity by passing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through a vaginal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> canal. The second before it emerges, it's not human. The second
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emerges, it's now suddenly human.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ridiculous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't YOU tell us where your magical line of demarcation is, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it signifies?  And then tell us who told you so...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm waiting for the answer to my question first.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...which is?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apparently it's too much trouble just to raise your eyes upthread?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is your question, "Who says a fetus isn't a human?"?  Really?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep. I'd like to know who's making these pronouncements for
>>>>>>>> everyone else
>>>>>>>> and what special authority allows them to make that claim definitively.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's easy:  NO ONE is "making these pronouncements for everyone else".
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, Burstein did, which is why I asked the question.
>>>>
>>>> I took his statement to say that it's irrational to call a fetus a human
>>>
>>> I took his statement to say what he actually said: a declarative statement
>>> of
>>> fact that a fetus is not a human.
>>
>> And which one of the many connotations of 'human' did you ascertain?
>
> Any of them.

You mean he meant *all* of them? E.g.:


https://slideplayer.com/slide/13128041/79/images/7/Who+is+a+human+being+Aristotle+Man+is+a+rational+animal.jpg

( https://tinyurl.com/2p8cw3n7 )

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor