XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 9/9/2024 8:19 AM, Scout wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > "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...   
      
   Economic activity can be made illegal.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)