XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Attila"  wrote in message   
   news:9f34ejdtdj4sjunn1vm0gbu8o64n7pd8fc@4ax.com...   
   > On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 12:59:05 -0500, "Scout"   
   >  in alt.abortion   
   > with message-id  wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>"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???   
   >   
   > Irrelevant.   
      
   It is relevant   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>What is the fetus survival rate?   
   >>   
   >   
   > In a perfect world, zero.   
      
   I see so wholesale murder then.....   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)