XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: sac.politics
From: Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA
On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 02:29:19 +0000, Mitchell Holman
wrote:
>Blue Lives Matter wrote in
>news:rn9pdjlnm146ugka8a365bfcnm0nheepkg@4ax.com:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Who are you to decide what is right?
>
I'm the guy who decides what is right for me, you pathetic simpleton.
It's not my job to decide what's right for anyone else.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
