XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: skeeterweed@photonmail.com   
      
   In article <0fDDO.160411$if3c.96620@fx13.iad>, byKKKer@do~rag.net   
   says...   
   >   
   > On 9/7/2024 6:17 AM, NoBody 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.   
   > >   
   > > It's always interesting to watch lefties try to justify killing babies   
   > > in the womb.   
   >   
   > There are no babies in wombs.   
   >   
   > >   
   > >>   
   > >> Also, Congress is permitted to enact legislation that takes the issue   
   > >> away from the states.   
   > >   
   > > Why do you believe that the Feds must have laws to control everything   
   > > and everybody?  This is a state's rights issue.   
   >   
   > No, it's not.   
      
   Yes. The feds have no say.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)