Yes. They are completely moronic. The UVVA states in it SPECIFICALLY that it does not apply to abortion providers. They are in my opinion just dumb.
FACTS ARE FACTS. I don't see you offering any "alternative facts". Just worthless unsupported opinions (below).
YOUR MERE CLAIM IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Why don't you provide some evidence? I assume that because you didn't, you can't. Tsk, tsk!
YOUR MERE CLAIM IS STILL WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. But I don't care about any evidence regarding either side of that topic in this Forum (for the Abortion Debate), so don't bother.
OKAY. Provided you are praying for the women who have been victimized by abortion-opponent policies to the point where they feel their only option is to abort. It's a total waste of effort pray for the mindless soulless animals getting aborted there; if you want to pray for mindless soulless animals, you should pray for the bees. Because without them, all those extra mouths-to-feed that you want to see born are going to die, anyway, slowly and horribly from starvation.
"Animal" is merely a construct, and has no validity outside of its utility in certain scientific trades.
Well, I doubt that Vice would be a credible source in actual scientific research. Perhaps rather than just spouting pop-sci jargon to give an illusion of credibility, you should address the fallacies I've pointed out.
NEVERTHELESS, HUMANS ARE ANIMALS. Even kids might know that Fact better than some adults.
DON'T FORGET MACHINES, including future robots that we expect to possess True Artificial Intelligence.
YOU CAN INCLUDE PLANTS, TOO. In general, living things can only survive by obtaining resources from outside themselves. Plants most-directly affect rocks and specks of dust, although animals sometimes do, too (salt licks). Your question seems to be equivalent to asking, why should any living thing continue to survive? Prior to the existence of sufficient intelligence to be able to ask such a Question, the Answer appears to be something like "Nature doesn't care; anything that can possibly happen is allowed to happen." That word "should" in the Question is irrelevant.
THE ROCK DOES NOT HAVE ANY IOTA OF VOLITION. Even a microbe has enough volition such that after detecting a nearby food-particle, it tends to move to engulf it. (While this is certainly more of a stimulus/response thing than any sort of "will" getting exercised, I'm melding the two things here under the generic label of "volition", simply because it can be difficult to tell when stimulus/response ends and "will" begins, as classically pointed out here.) Your Question basically asks why your volition is superior to the volition of other entities that also have it. Prior to the existence of sufficient intelligence to be able to ask such a Question, the Answer appears to be, "Nature doesn't care; anything that can possibly happen is allowed to happen." In terms of Evolution, there is The Law of the Jungle, basically "might makes right". As previously mentioned, living things cannot survive without obtaining resources from outside themselves. Often those resources are found in other living things....
A "POPULAR" PRESENTATION DOESN'T MAKE THE SITUATION LESS REAL. The plight of bees has been getting well-documented in appropriate scientific circles for several years now.
PERHAPS YOU SHOULD ACTUALLY PRESENT SOME FALLACIES, instead of exposing your ignorance.
Animals are atoms, this is a fact - you seem to be confused as to the definition of fact. Animal is just a zoological definition, so one could just as easily say humans are atoms, much like rocks.
Children imagine lots of whimsical things, such as how they might grow up to be a Jedi Knight and confront the Sith.
"Living" is a construct - tell me what the actual difference between a "living thing" and a nonliving thing, like a rock is?
"Volition" is a moot point, who declared that collections of material particles which contained "volition" should be privileged over ones which don't?
NO, THAT IS A STUPID LIE. Animals are made from atoms, and are very different from atoms.
BRAGGING ABOUT YOURSELF, I SEE. Tsk, tsk!
NOT QUITE. The root-word from which "animal" is derived refers to motion. Animals can generate forces within themselves to move about. Atoms only move about as a consequence of external factors.
REPEATING YOUR STUPID LIE DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS STUPID, NOR ANY LESS OF A LIE.
MOST ROCKS ARE DIFFERENT FROM ATOMS, ALSO. Many are full of complex molecules. Much like atoms, rocks only move about as a consequence of external factors.
IRRELEVANT TO ACTUAL FACTS KNOWN BY CHILDREN. They might not know as many actual facts as an average adult, but they generally know at least some. I mentioned a specific fact that a particular child knew, that a particular adult didn't accept as actual Fact.
ALL IT TAKES IS ONE. A robot with a True Artificial Intelligence would be quite equivalent to an ordinary human person.
THE ODDS ARE GOOD. For example, here is some data about the memory capacity of the human brain. Here's some old-ish (2004) data about the growth of storage capacity of hard-disk drives. Currently-available drives are about 1/100 of human-brain capacity. The graph near the start of the capacity-growth article shows that between 1990 and 2000, storage capacity increased 100-fold. If that trend continues, then in about 10 years we can expect hard disk drives to have the same storage capacity as the human brain. There are similar trends for the usage of RAM in computers. Many A.I. researchers think that if we don't have True A.I. in 20 years, the software will be the bottleneck, not the hardware.
FALSE. There will still be humans around who would have to deal with it. And as far as the Overall Abortion Debate is concerned (any doubts about that continuing for 20+ more years?), the idiocy that only humans can be persons will be permanently put to rest.
A LIVING THING IS AN ENTROPIC SHORTCUT. While overall entropy everywhere always increases, living things can reverse it within themselves, while causing even-greater entropic increase around them (the consequence of living things obtaining resources outside themselves, to keep living). Rocks do nothing.
YOU MIGHT AS WELL ASK WHY THE EARTH IS PRIVILEGED TO EXIST IN THE GOLDILOCKS ZONE. Some things simply are, and that's all there is to it. Which brings us back to what I previously wrote: Nature doesn't care; anything that is possible is allowed to happen.
ARE YOU DELIBERATELY IGNORING WHAT I WROTE? "Nature doesn't care; anything that is possible is allowed." There is no "who" and there is no "should". And if you claim there are such things as "who" and "should" with respect to your Question, it is you who must support that Positive Claim with evidence! (see Rule 5 of the link)
YOU ARE IGNORING WHAT I WROTE! Try again!
What's your point? "Sameness and difference" are a construct, not an inherently existing definition.
I'd like to see a source for that.
Okay, and you can afford to buy one of these robots...? How much will it cost?
You refute your own argument, since humans being animals are part of nature. Therefore since nature doesn't care, there is no reason why the government should allow abortion if doing so would deny its own self-interest, since that would be an act of altruism, or choosing right over might, or however you put it.
AND YET YOU CLAIMED ANIMALS WERE THE SAME AS ATOMS. Wrongly!
OKAY; I WAS NOT ENTIRELY CORRECT. Here. (Nevertheless, breathing generally involves motion, so I wasn't entirely wrong, either.)
NOT ALWAYS. An amoeba or a paramecium is a single-celled animal. They can quite actively move about, seeking resources for survival. A typical bacterium, however, is a single-celled non-animal. It usually just sits there in an environment that tends to bring resources to it (like, say, flowing water).
STILL VERY DIFFERENT FROM ATOMS.
NOT PARTICULARLY RELEVANT. As a class, multicellular organisms are generically similar. The genes that enabled multicelluar organisms to exist are foundational to that class. As a consequence, see this.
AGAIN YOU IGNORED WHAT I WROTE. I specified a particular way in which animals are somewhat equal, by having a degree of volition. I most certainly did not say they had the same degree of volition! I did say that there is an assumption about humans, to be considered as generally having a degree of volition that ordinary animals can't match. Why are you Stupidly Lying, claiming I said something I didn't actually say?
IRRELEVANT TO THE POINT. As soon as a True Artificial Intelligence begins to exist, no matter how or when, the "equation" blathered for decades by abortion opponents ("person"="human") will be destroyed.
NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. I am not responsible for your Stupid Lies regarding what I wrote!