soc.women

R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Vandar wrote:
>
>>R. Steve Walz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If abortion does not kill a baby then why is killing a pregnant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>woman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>double murder??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>----------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It isn't. It's regarded as a crime against the mother. Only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>uneducated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>slobbering hooting nincompoops call it "double-murder", the law
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>NOT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /trials/peterson/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I guess those at CourtTV are "slobbering hooting nincompoops".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>California Penal Code Section 187
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>fetus, with malice aforethought.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>More legalistic nonsense. The SCotUS says it isn't, and as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>recall,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that is the Law of the Land.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The SCOTUS does not define murder and is not the law of the land.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>----------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>I can't really help that you're obviously uneducated and illiterate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The Constitution is the law of the land, Einstein. The SCOTUS doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>make law.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>-------------
>>>>>>>>>>The SCotUS INTERPRETS the Constitution, and is the SOLE interpreter!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>All you need to do now is point out where murder is defined in the
>>>>>>>>>Constitution.
>>>>>>>>>Since it isn't, the SCOTUS does NOT say murder doesn't include a fetus.
>>>>>>>>>States define such things and California has defined the unlawful
>>>>>>>>>killing
>>>>>>>>>of a fetus, with malice aforethought, to be murder.
>>>>>>>>>The SCOTUS doesn't factor into that in any way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>LOL!
>>>>>>>>How about that 4th Amendment that GUARANTEES SAFETY AND SECURITY IN ONE'S
>>>>>>>>PERSON?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-----------------
>>>>>>>IF you're a human being, fetuses are not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Look. It isn't me who is clinging to some ignorant, negligent excuse that
>>>>>>acts as if persons who are in utero are not persons.
>>>>>
>>>>>---------------
>>>>>Gee, I'm not either, that leaves you again, asswipe.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fetuses are NOT persons.
>>>>>If we ever were fetuses we'd remember it.
>>>>>Since we don't, WE WEREN'T!!
>>>>
>>>>I was one year old once. I even have pictures to prove it, but I don't
>>>>remember it. Most adults' memories don't go much further back than 5
>>>>years old or so.
>>>
>>>-----------------
>>>Experiments in directed memory and hypnosis have revealed that everyone,
>>>no matter how poorly they indexed it, possesses memories back to the
>>>start of their personhood, at several weeks after birth. These were
>>>checked against other family accounts and found to be quite accurate.
>>>
>>>The adult notion of poor child memory doesn't withstand honest scrutiny.
>>
>>Yeah... "repressed memories" are real reliable.
>
> ------------------
> Repressed memories are confabulated or imagined, memories that are
> supported by the recollections of family and others are not.
>
> Anyway, if humans really didn't remember their first year, then how
> to they remember how they learned to walk or talk?

They don't.

> And if humans really didn't remember their first year, then that is
> an even stronger argument in favor of fetuses not being human!!

Of course they are human. They certainly aren't part of any other
species. What they aren't are "persons".

> It suggests that if we had been killed the first year, we would
> never have even known it! Thus it wouldn't actually happen to
> "anybody".

Riiiiight. Infants are conscious. That doesn't mean that we remember
what it was to be one. Even you don't remember your first year. No one does.