XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: JW@jw.com   
      
   On 9/6/2024 9:41 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On 9/6/2024 3:28 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 20:07:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 9/5/2024 8:45 AM, Scout wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Nope, I just pointed out the ramifications if infant rights only exist   
   >>>> post birth. Which would also mean, you could charge someone with murder   
   >>>> for killing an unborn child.. since they are by the standard set..   
   >>>> not a   
   >>>> person.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So.. Do they have rights prior to birth or not?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You can't have it both ways at the same time.   
   >>>   
   >>> A fetus has some rights that increase as the pregnancy progresses, but   
   >>> it does not achieve personhood until birth.   
   >>>   
   >>> For example, you can logically and consistently 1) charge someone with   
   >>> murder of a non-person fetus if it is intentionally killed without the   
   >>> woman's permission at any stage of the pregnancy, 2) permit abortion   
   >>> before fetal viability for any reason because the woman's liberty rights   
   >>> are more important than the life of a non-viable fetus, and 3) permit   
   >>> abortion after fetal viability only to save the life or health of the   
   >>> woman because her life and health are important than the life of a   
   >>> viable fetus.   
   >>>   
   >>>> Agreed.. but now that we've set a basic notion that a some point   
   >>>> between   
   >>>> conception and birth the fetus does achieve personhood   
   >>>   
   >>> Per above, I do not agree with that claim.   
   >>   
   >> That "personhood" thing is nonsense from both perspectives. The reason   
   >> some people, myself included, oppose some stages of abortion is   
   >> because because we hate to see those potentually (at the very least)   
   >> very valuable little human bodies destroyed, and we oppose the act of   
   >> doing it. The states will now decide the psuedo legal aspects of the   
   >> issue, but inevitably, it will always be an emotion based decision, as   
   >> many "legal" decisions are.   
   >   
   > Personhood is critical because if the fetus is a person, the liberty and   
   > rights and the health of the woman must take a back seat (her life still   
   > would take precedence). But if the fetus is a not a person, then we have   
   > a tradeoff between the life of the fetus and the liberty and health of   
   > the woman. I agree that tradeoff is informed by emotion. But, there   
   > would be no tradeoff if the fetus is a person.   
   >   
   > Also, Congress is permitted to enact legislation that takes the issue   
   > away from the states.   
    >   
   Where in Article II of the Constitution is Congress granted that power?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)