XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: sac.politics
From: skeeterweed@photonmail.com
In article , noemail@aol.com
says...
>
> Blue Lives Matter wrote in
> news:vktmdj9muft4uk5mvtni5ol819ac01td2j@4ax.com:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> You don't think the voters should
> have a direct say in the matter?
>
> Why?
They didn't get to pick Kamila.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
