XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"Attila" wrote in message
news:tb0ndjpk835idocj09k848slgf5ejoga9l@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 12:42:03 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> in alt.abortion with message-id
> wrote:
>
>>On 9/6/2024 12:11 PM, Attila wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 08:41:25 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> If a fetus is not a person there is no tradeoff since the
>>> only person with rights involved is the woman.
>>
>>Is a law which proscribes animal torture unconstitutional because it
>>violates the liberty rights of a person?
>
> Currently, no. But if legislation defined an animal as a
> person it would be.
>
>>
>>>> Also, Congress is permitted to enact legislation that takes the issue
>>>> away from the states.
>>>
>>> Under what law?
>>
>>Currently, partial-birth abortion is banned nationwide. Congress could
>>choose to ban all abortions nationwide. Or, it could prevent any state
>>from banning abortions.
>
> Not without a Constitutional Amendment.
Not really, technically, all it would require would be enacting a federal
law recognizing them as persons.. and then the 14th Amendment would kick in
among others.
Of course, how long such a government would continue past that point would
be another issue.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
