XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Blue Lives Matter"  wrote in message   
   news:8gemdjh9aj5idc72ccrpcsd0dscgiop3fo@4ax.com...   
   > On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 08:41:25 -0700, 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.   
   >   
   > Personhood would also be evaluated by emotion. The OJ Simpson murder   
   > trial has proven that emotion trumps logic in the court system.   
   > Trump's hush money trial is more proof of that.   
      
   I disagree, I think it was an issue of legal tactics and the ability of the   
   defense to raise reasonable doubt.   
      
   Which was NOT aided by police planting evidence and otherwise contaminating   
   the case.   
      
   Because at that point, as a juror, you have to wonder what else was fake   
   evidence that wasn't exposed as such... which could lead to someone having   
   reasonable doubt.   
      
   So unless you were on the jury and knew only what the jury did, and sat in   
   on the jury's deliberations, you can't really say how you would have voted,   
   much less why they voted as they did.. could have been 1 person, could have   
   been all 12, could have been something between those.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)