XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA   
      
   On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 18:36:06 +0000, Mitchell Holman    
   wrote:   
      
   >Blue Lives Matter  wrote in   
   >news:vlpodjl5ddsghfsa4fhdtlrssgicjssecb@4ax.com:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   >   Which do you think is a better   
   >measure of what the voters want?   
      
   I didn't question anything about what the voter want, Dummmy, I   
   questioned whether they would do the right thing.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)