XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Attila"  wrote in message   
   news:bdsudjtkh7n20maf14tqgs9kbsoujon0qp@4ax.com...   
   > On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 09:55:14 -0500, "Scout"   
   >  in alt.abortion   
   > with message-id  wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>"Attila"  wrote in message   
   >>news:smpldj5uhv5kcg4b340fi7tvtshr7n845p@4ax.com...   
   >>> On Fri, 06 Sep 2024 06:28:19 -0400, Blue Lives Matter   
   >>>  in alt.abortion with   
   >>> message-id    
   >>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Valuable may be questionable.  Ask:   
   >>>   
   >>> :Hitler   
   >>> :Mao   
   >>> :Stalin   
   >>> :Pol Pot   
   >>> :Charles Manson   
   >>> :Jack the Ripper   
   >>> :Osama bin Laden   
   >>> :Ted Bundy   
   >>> :Jeffrey Dahmer   
   >>> :Charles Whitman   
   >>> :John Wayne Gacy   
   >>> :Ed Gein   
   >>> :Tim McVeigh   
   >>> :Mohammed Atta   
   >>> :Julio Gonzalez   
   >>> :Andrew Kehoe   
   >>> :Jack Gilbert Graham   
   >>> :Martin Bryant   
   >>> :Baruch Goldstein   
   >>> :Humberto de la Torre   
   >>> :James Oliver Huberty   
   >>> :Charles Starkweather   
   >>> :Richard Speck   
   >>> :Thomas Hamilton   
   >>> :Michael Ryan   
   >>> :Ronald Gene Simmons Sr   
   >>> :Dr. Harold Shipman   
   >>> :Pedro Lopez   
   >>> :Herman Mudgett   
   >>> :Delfina and Maria de Jesus Gonzales   
   >>> :Daniel Barbosa   
   >>> :David Berkowitz   
   >>   
   >>This would suggest a baby's future is predetermined and NOT a result of   
   >>anything else.   
   >   
   > Nope.   
      
   Then your so called point is moot.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)