XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Attila"  wrote in message   
   news:0ksudjlapohc50u95g6ufk1nj9hadn9lbs@4ax.com...   
   > On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 10:19:28 -0500, "Scout"   
   >  in alt.abortion   
   > with message-id  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...   
   >>   
   >>   
   > Impossible.  The word "murder" has a specific legal meaning   
   > and requires an illegal component.  Murder can never be   
   > legal.   
      
   Well, I'm sure someone being legally murdered would disagree with you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)