Re: How Kammie is Scamming Her Pro-Choice Supporters

On 10/24/2024 2:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Oct 24, 2024 at 11:30:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

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.

 And according to you, there can be no other reasoning?

Reasoning proceeds from premises.  Starting from facts ends with them.
Afaik, laws deal with facts ...with the Constitution specifically excluding doctrines of non-fact, i.e., religion.