XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Attila"  wrote in message   
   news:nafpdjpb2u6l7qsuupu70jqsrbfvga8489@4ax.com...   
   > On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 09:17:30 -0400, NoBody   
   >  in alt.abortion with message-id   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >>   
   >>It's always interesting to watch lefties try to justify killing babies   
   >>in the womb.   
   >   
   > The intent of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy.  Any   
   > other issue is an irrelevant side effect.   
      
   A similar statement could be made for any murder.   
      
   I terminated him from smoking in the bedroom. Any other issues is an   
   irrelevant side effect.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)