XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Attila"  wrote in message   
   news:t1sudjhv10tg9qgjtsc2h4lfgmblknhnbe@4ax.com...   
   > On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 09:52:04 -0500, "Scout"   
   >  in alt.abortion   
   > with message-id  wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>"Attila"  wrote in message   
   >>news:2a7ldjtciqa5ehsmil8ffmnr3pckil7fom@4ax.com...   
   >>> On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 20:07:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth   
   >>>  in alt.abortion with message-id   
   >>>  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,   
   >>>   
   >>> Only if the local laws state this.  It is not automatically   
   >>> true everywhere.   
   >>   
   >>True, we could say much the same about slavery.   
   >   
   > Slavery is illegal by law.   
      
   In the US.. meanwhile in Africa slavery is still taking place.   
      
   And to some manner perhaps even in China.   
      
   >  Without such laws slavery would   
   > not be illegal.   
      
   No shit Sherlock ...   
      
   >>>> 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,   
   >>>   
   >>> Historically a fetus has no rights.   
   >>   
   >>Neither did slaves   
   >   
   > Irrelevant.   
      
   On  the contrary, it's quite relevant, either human beings have rights, or   
   they don't.   
      
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Only if the local laws state this.   
   >>   
   >>... or state law.. or even federal law..   
   >   
   > Of course.   
   >   
   > Such laws would require placing the rights of a fetus ahead   
   > of those of the woman involved.  Good luck with that.   
      
   I suppose the laws against rapists put the right of the woman ahead of the   
   rights of the man?   
      
   It would be like saying once you're being raped you have to accept it.   
      
   Because, we can't violate the rights of the man to have sex.   
      
      
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Historically all persons have been born alive.   
   >>   
   >>And right there you lost much of the creditability you might have had.   
   >   
   > I don't expect to have any credibility with you.   
      
   Well, I'm sure you are use to having no credibility.. that's common where   
   you have none.   
      
      
   >>Research and understand the meaning of "Stillbirth"   
   >>   
   >>https://www.marchofdimes.org/find-support/topics/miscarriage-l   
   ss-grief/stillbirth   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Not all pregnancies are completed.  Don't you think I know   
   > that?   
      
   Apparently you didn't.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)