XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: sac.politics
From: NoBody@nowhere.com
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 13:01:05 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
>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.
Of all the dumb things Josh has tried to justify, calling abortions
"economic activiity" is perhaps the sickest thing I've ever seen here.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
