XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"Attila" wrote in message
news:nh34ejpkkncp3635o0h5cuu41guioruptf@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 13:04:50 -0500, "Scout"
> in alt.abortion
> with message-id wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"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.
>
> I am setting no standard.
Then you are establishing arbitrary and contradictory law.
> I am pointing out what the
> standard has been.
Oh, so we should continue to have slavery because that was the standard.
Right?
> The intent of an abortion has always
> been to terminate a pregnancy.
And murder for hire is the same thing.. terminating a living being. The only
difference being the age of the victim.
We see how why you don't want a standard, because first you say murder
should be legal, until suddenly you say it should be illegal, until you make
it legal again.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
