XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 9/9/2024 9:46 AM, J Carlson wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Nope. But, thanks for playing troll-Rudy.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)