XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "NoBody"  wrote in message   
   news:ulkodjlocmsk52t8u941ufvqb24p39fpu8@4ax.com...   
   > On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 13:01:05 -0600, Just Wondering  wrote:   
   >   
   >>On 9/6/2024 11:36 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.   
   >>   
   >>You're right about Article I not II.   
   >>The Necessary and Proper Clause is not a grant of power to Congress,   
   >>and anyway it's not necessary and proper for Congress to act in areas   
   >>that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve to the states.   
   >>Abortions aren't economic activity.  They aren't interstate commerce.   
   >>They're medical procedures, usually not interstate.   
   >   
   > Of all the dumb things Josh has tried to justify, calling abortions   
   > "economic activiity" is perhaps the sickest thing I've ever seen here.   
      
   Hmmm. Then murder for hire would be legal.   
   I mean as an economic activity...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)