XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: NoBody@nowhere.com   
      
   On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 10:36:54 -0700, 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 are one sick pup...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)