XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: JW@jw.com   
      
   On 9/6/2024 11:36 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On 9/6/2024 10:22 AM, Just Wondering wrote:   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   > You mean Article I. It's the Necessary and Proper Clause bringing into   
   > execution the Commerce Clause which permits Congress to regulate   
   > economic activity which substantially impacts interstate commerce   
   > (Gonzales v. Raich, 2005). Abortion services are economic activity.   
      
   You're right about Article I not II.   
   The Necessary and Proper Clause is not a grant of power to Congress,   
   and anyway it's not necessary and proper for Congress to act in areas   
   that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve to the states.   
   Abortions aren't economic activity.  They aren't interstate commerce.   
   They're medical procedures, usually not interstate.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)