XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 9/9/2024 7:02 AM, J Carlson wrote:   
   > On 9/6/2024 10:36 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >> On 9/6/2024 10:22 AM, Just Wondering wrote:   
   >>> On 9/6/2024 9:41 AM, 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Also, Congress is permitted to enact legislation that takes the   
   >>>> issue away from the states.   
   >>>  >   
   >>> Where in Article II of the Constitution is Congress granted that power?   
   >>   
   >> You mean Article I. It's the Necessary and Proper Clause bringing into   
   >> execution the Commerce Clause which permits Congress to regulate   
   >> economic activity which substantially impacts interstate commerce   
   >> (Gonzales v. Raich, 2005). Abortion services are economic activity.   
   >   
   > Not interstate.   
      
   They don't have to be. Under the N&P applied to the Commerce power,   
   Congress has the power to regulate intrastate economic activity that   
   substantially affects interstate commerce.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)