XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: sac.politics
From: vallor@cultnix.org
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 13:44:06 -0700, % wrote in
:
> vallor wrote:
>> On 9/8/2024 7:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 09:17:30 -0400, NoBody 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.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, Congress is permitted to enact legislation that takes the issue
>>>>> away from the states.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you believe that the Feds must have laws to control everything
>>>> and everybody? This is a state's rights issue. Let's leave it where
>>>> it belongs.
>>>
>>> Silence from "Josh".
>>
>> Kremlin Girl / Bit of Nothingness petulantly and childishly whines again
>> that she's being ignored by her intellectual superiors.
>>
> do you burn kids fingers and kick old dogs too
You're talking to a frogger.
--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.11.0-rc7 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"Book never written: "Dog training." by Wille Bite"
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
