XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: NoBody@nowhere.com   
      
   On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 11:19:24 -0400, Attila  wrote:   
      
   >On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 10:21:30 -0400, NoBody   
   > in alt.abortion with message-id   
   ><0mcrdjpns3au7cbvmu2nauspu779fni8vr@4ax.com> wrote:   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >   
   >What is is subject to change.  I support a pro-choice   
   >Constitutional Amendment to settle the question.   
      
   Won't ever happen and that would be the most disgusting thing to   
   codify in the Constitution.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   >Based on my dislike of forcing a woman to risk her health   
   >and life against her will.  Plus of course it is none of   
   >your business what she does.   
      
   Like I said, based totally on you feelings.  You're fine with the   
   dismissing the "feelings" of the baby that gets killed every time   
   there is when there's an abortion apparently.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)