XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: j_carlson@gmx.com   
      
   On 9/9/2024 9:21 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   No, you *are* saying what the law should be. We can always find your   
   approbation   
   of this kind of shitty sophistry. You are a left-wing statist, and when you get   
   the result you like, you approve of the "good law."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)