XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA   
      
   On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 14:27:13 +0000, Mitchell Holman    
   wrote:   
      
   >Blue Lives Matter  wrote in   
   >news:a04odjt535b0ub3qe1iimt0bjjh2pbqun3@4ax.com:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 02:04:03 +0000, Mitchell Holman    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>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?   
   >>   
   >>  Nope   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>  Why?   
   >>   
   >> We have a representative government.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   So you oppose all ballot initiatives   
   >beause you trust your easily-bribed   
   >reps to always do the right thing.   
   >   
   >   How naive.........   
   >   
   >   
      
   About as much as I trust ballot initiatives to do the right thing.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)