XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"Attila" wrote in message
news:3auudjps6d1kif6gqtfregvljghs3l64pf@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 10:17:15 -0500, "Scout"
> in alt.abortion
> with message-id wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Attila" wrote in message
>>news:nafpdjpb2u6l7qsuupu70jqsrbfvga8489@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 09:17:30 -0400, NoBody
>>> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 08:41:25 -0700, 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.
>>>>
>>>>It's always interesting to watch lefties try to justify killing babies
>>>>in the womb.
>>>
>>> The intent of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. Any
>>> other issue is an irrelevant side effect.
>>
>>A similar statement could be made for any murder.
>>
>>I terminated him from smoking in the bedroom. Any other issues is an
>>irrelevant side effect.
>
> I of course am postulating a situation in which an abortion
> is legal.
And I am postulating a situation in which you've made murder legal.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
