XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: NoBody@nowhere.com   
      
   On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 18:37:30 -0400, Attila  wrote:   
      
   >On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 14:10:26 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth   
   > in alt.abortion with message-id   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>On 9/7/2024 1:53 PM, Attila wrote:   
   >>> On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 07:32:14 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth   
   >>>  in alt.abortion with message-id   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>{snip}   
   >>   
   >>>> The legislature made a tradeoff between the rights of a   
   >>>> (non-person) animal and a person, and came down on the side of the   
   >>>> animal. And, that's legally permissible.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Similarly, a legislature can also (now that Roe has been discarded) come   
   >>>> down on the side of a non-person fetus over the rights of a woman.   
   >>>   
   >>> Are you saying a fetus has the same rights and   
   >>> responsibilities as a born individual?   
   >>   
   >>Under the Constitution, no. Nonetheless, abortion can be outlawed. That   
   >>was the whole point of discarding Roe, and some states have done so.   
   >>   
   >>It's as if you think Roe is still good law. Weird!   
   >   
   >No, it isn't but I think it should be.   
   >   
      
   What you "think" is irrelevant.  What IS is relevant.   
      
      
   >>   
   >>>> The rarity of PBA is not a legal factor and the courts have already   
   >>>> decided the issue. Congress was authorized to enact the PBA under its   
   >>>> Commerce Clause power (or the Necessary and Proper Clause applied to the   
   >>>> Commerce Clause). The same would apply to a nationwide ban on abortion   
   >>>> or a law that prevents states from banning abortions.   
   >>>   
   >>> The courts would have something to say about a lot of that.   
   >>   
   >>What part of "the courts have already decided the issue" did you not   
   >>understand? The federal PBA ban is permissible, and the same logic   
   >>applies to other Congressional regulations of abortion.   
   >   
   >Most of the discussions I have heard say a Constitutional   
   >Amendment would be needed for a nation-wide law.   
   >   
   >I would support one that legalizes pro-choice.   
      
   Based solely on your feelings like a good little lib.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)