XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Attila"  wrote in message   
   news:h8a1ej5fnonkodp0hokcn3il7beihjs5su@4ax.com...   
   > On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 12:59:58 -0500, "Scout"   
   >  in alt.abortion   
   > with message-id  wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>"Attila"  wrote in message   
   >>news:52uudjp49dfoiuo42m1ii4ggojvjvh6p0g@4ax.com...   
   >>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 10:06:25 -0500, "Scout"   
   >>>  in alt.abortion   
   >>> with message-id  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>"Attila"  wrote in message   
   >>>>news:tqkmdj5gg33cevdfv2p62pu7fo0vv53go1@4ax.com...   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>And if that's the case.. then they can't be considered a person in any   
   >>>>other   
   >>>>legal matter. It wouldn't be murder to kill a fetus. It might be some   
   >>>>lesser   
   >>>>offense against the mother but the death of the fetus would never be   
   >>>>murder.   
   >>>   
   >>> It would be if the law involved specifically defined the   
   >>> killing of a fetus under certain circumstances as murder.   
   >>   
   >>Doesn't matter murder involved a human being which you claim they are not.   
   >   
   > True, but some local laws specifically define the killing of   
   > a fetus as murder.  With restrictions.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>As such it's little different than giving you a paper cut, or removing a   
   >>wart.   
   >>   
   >>Oh, sure, I might have violated your rights by injuring you.. but that's   
   >>it.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Abortion is a simple, safe medical procedure that is usually   
   > done on an out-patient basis.   
      
   How safe it is for the fetus???   
      
   What is the fetus survival rate?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)