XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"Attila" wrote in message
news:bt91ejputqfa86aqib1dsot15rshktm2qf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 13:04:31 -0500, "Scout"
> in alt.abortion
> with message-id wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"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.
>>
> Since that would be an impossibility I am not worried about
> it.
So murder never occurs or you somehow feel you are immortal and screw
everyone else?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
