XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"Attila" wrote in message
news:e3a1ej158v2u9eolp98kl9tcklmoqttf12@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 13:00:55 -0500, "Scout"
> in alt.abortion
> with message-id wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"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.
>>
>
> The problem is having that Amendment include a fetus - which
> I consider unlikely.
>
> Making a fetus a person would open a barrel of snakes no one
> wants to disturb.
Then.. if you kill a fetus.. it's not murder and never can be.. it's simply
aggravated assault against the woman.
If you're going to apply that standard.. then it needs to apply all the time
under every circumstance.
So make up your mind.. is that the standard or not?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
