XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Attila"  wrote in message   
   news:jda1ejlpiebe2jof3714bjg14ino2o4hfd@4ax.com...   
   > On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 13:02:08 -0500, "Scout"   
   >  in alt.abortion   
   > with message-id  wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>"Attila"  wrote in message   
   >>news:3auudjps6d1kif6gqtfregvljghs3l64pf@4ax.com...   
   >>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 10:17:15 -0500, "Scout"   
   >>>  in alt.abortion   
   >>> with message-id  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>"Attila"  wrote in message   
   >>>>news:nafpdjpb2u6l7qsuupu70jqsrbfvga8489@4ax.com...   
   >>>>> On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 09:17:30 -0400, NoBody   
   >>>>>  in alt.abortion with message-id   
   >>>>>  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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The intent of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy.  Any   
   >>>>> other issue is an irrelevant side effect.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>A similar statement could be made for any murder.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>I terminated him from smoking in the bedroom. Any other issues is an   
   >>>>irrelevant side effect.   
   >   
   > A fetus smokes?   
      
   Who cares, you set the standard and I'm just applying that standard to a   
   circumstance. If your standard is valid then it should make since under such   
   a circumstance.   
      
   > Besides what is terminated is a pregnancy.   
   > Usually a process is terminated.   
      
   So the fetus survives?   
      
   I mean it's just like saying I was just terminating a few skin cells.. that   
   you died was irrelevant to the process.   
      
      
   >>> I of course am postulating a situation in which an abortion   
   >>> is legal.   
   >>   
   >>And I am postulating a situation in which you've made murder legal.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > If it is murder it cannot be legal.  If it is legal it   
   > cannot be murder.   
      
   I see.. so as long as it's not illegal to kill.. then why do we have so much   
   issues with what the Nazi's did?   
      
   I mean what they did was legal under their laws.. so according to you it   
   wasn't an issue.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)