XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"Attila" wrote in message
news:ko24ejtqa0t2g96s6mh2o0jrj19fpl0iib@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 13:05:37 -0500, "Scout"
> in alt.abortion
> with message-id wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"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?
>>
>
> Legal murder never occurs.
Sure it does. The fetus was murdered and you're claiming that's legal.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
