XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA   
      
   On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 08:41:25 -0700, 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.   
      
   Personhood would also be evaluated by emotion. The OJ Simpson murder   
   trial has proven that emotion trumps logic in the court system.   
   Trump's hush money trial is more proof of that.   
      
   >Also, Congress is permitted to enact legislation that takes the issue   
   >away from the states.   
      
      
   That takes both houses and a signing by the president. It's also   
   subject to review by the court as to its compliance with the   
   Constitution.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)