XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 9/9/2024 8:56 AM, J Carlson wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   That's likely correct (I've seen no examples to the contrary).   
      
   > This is why you have no credibility. You just accept statist sophistry   
   > on its face every time.   
      
   I am (again) saying what the law is, not what the law should be.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)