XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Attila"  wrote in message   
   news:uttudjt0bjnvkm402uka3hs9s8t19ogt2i@4ax.com...   
   > On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 10:14:08 -0500, "Scout"   
   >  in alt.abortion   
   > with message-id  wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>"Attila"  wrote in message   
   >>news:tb0ndjpk835idocj09k848slgf5ejoga9l@4ax.com...   
   >>> On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 12:42:03 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth   
   >>>  in alt.abortion with message-id   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On 9/6/2024 12:11 PM, Attila wrote:   
   >>>>> On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 08:41:25 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth   
   >>>>>  in alt.abortion with message-id   
   >>>>>  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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If a fetus is not a person there is no tradeoff since the   
   >>>>> only person with rights involved is the woman.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Is a law which proscribes animal torture unconstitutional because it   
   >>>>violates the liberty rights of a person?   
   >>>   
   >>> Currently, no.  But if legislation defined an animal as a   
   >>> person it would be.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> Also, Congress is permitted to enact legislation that takes the issue   
   >>>>>> away from the states.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Under what law?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Currently, partial-birth abortion is banned nationwide. Congress could   
   >>>>choose to ban all abortions nationwide. Or, it could prevent any state   
   >>>>from banning abortions.   
   >>>   
   >>> Not without a Constitutional Amendment.   
   >>   
   >>Not really, technically, all it would require would be enacting a federal   
   >>law recognizing them as persons.. and then the 14th Amendment would kick   
   >>in   
   >>among others.   
   >   
   > Good luck on getting that past Congress.   
      
   Well, considering the 14th Amendment is already past Congress.. I don't see   
   a problem getting it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)