XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: j_carlson@gmx.com   
      
   On 9/9/2024 9:52 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On 9/9/2024 9:46 AM, J Carlson wrote:   
   >> On 9/9/2024 9:21 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>> On 9/9/2024 8:56 AM, J Carlson wrote:   
   >>>> On 9/9/2024 8:26 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>>>> On 9/9/2024 7:02 AM, J Carlson wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 9/6/2024 10:36 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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Not interstate.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> They don't have to be. Under the N&P applied to the Commerce power,   
   >>>>> Congress has the power to regulate intrastate economic activity that   
   >>>>> substantially affects interstate commerce.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Sophistry. It has not been *shown* that any intrastate commerce   
   >>>> "substantially affects" interstate commerce.   
   >>>   
   >>> That's likely correct (I've seen no examples to the contrary).   
   >>>   
   >>>> This is why you have no credibility. You just accept statist sophistry on   
   >>>> its face every time.   
   >>>   
   >>> I am (again) saying what the law is, not what the law should be.   
   >>   
   >> No, you *are* saying what the law should be.   
   >   
   > Nope. But,   
      
   Yes, you are.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)