XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 9/6/2024 10:29 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   As it threw out Roe, SCOTUS rejected the argument that a fetus is a   
   person as specified in the 14th Amendment.   
      
   >> 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)