XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA   
      
   On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 11:05:01 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 9/6/2024 10:54 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 10:39:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> Based on what? There's no objective evidence on either side of that   
   >> issue..   
   >   
   >The reasoning is judges should not be making that call. Let the people   
   >and their representatives decide.   
      
   I'm ok with the state legislators deciding.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)