XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Attila"  wrote in message   
   news:smpldj5uhv5kcg4b340fi7tvtshr7n845p@4ax.com...   
   > On Fri, 06 Sep 2024 06:28:19 -0400, Blue Lives Matter   
   >  in alt.abortion with   
   > message-id    
   > 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.   
   >   
   > Valuable may be questionable.  Ask:   
   >   
   > :Hitler   
   > :Mao   
   > :Stalin   
   > :Pol Pot   
   > :Charles Manson   
   > :Jack the Ripper   
   > :Osama bin Laden   
   > :Ted Bundy   
   > :Jeffrey Dahmer   
   > :Charles Whitman   
   > :John Wayne Gacy   
   > :Ed Gein   
   > :Tim McVeigh   
   > :Mohammed Atta   
   > :Julio Gonzalez   
   > :Andrew Kehoe   
   > :Jack Gilbert Graham   
   > :Martin Bryant   
   > :Baruch Goldstein   
   > :Humberto de la Torre   
   > :James Oliver Huberty   
   > :Charles Starkweather   
   > :Richard Speck   
   > :Thomas Hamilton   
   > :Michael Ryan   
   > :Ronald Gene Simmons Sr   
   > :Dr. Harold Shipman   
   > :Pedro Lopez   
   > :Herman Mudgett   
   > :Delfina and Maria de Jesus Gonzales   
   > :Daniel Barbosa   
   > :David Berkowitz   
      
   This would suggest a baby's future is predetermined and NOT a result of   
   anything else.   
      
   Now, do you consider this to be true?   
      
   If not, what's your point?   
      
   If it is, then the failure to abort such is also predetermined and just as   
   inevitable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)