XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: sac.politics
From: j_carlson@gmx.com
On 9/9/2024 8:26 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> 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.
Sophistry. It has not been *shown* that any intrastate commerce "substantially
affects" interstate commerce.
This is why you have no credibility. You just accept statist sophistry on its
face every time.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
