[W:183]Let's have a real discussion about abortion

[Bodi]

After countless petty arguments that break down into personal attacks in almost every abortion thread, we are long overdue for real, constructive discussions here. That means no matter how you feel about every pregnant citizen's right to have a legal abortion, you must avoid letting emotions rule and totally ignore the facts. Emotions are great, but facts always come first. If your opinions are based on emotions, they are worthless because there are no facts to support them. Yes, I am talking to the anti-choicers here, but pro-choicers have to do their part too. On both sides, the rule is, "If you can't prove it, you're wrong."

With all of that said, let's begin. The United States Constitution is very clear that zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses have no rights and all girls and women have the rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and lifestyle choices. This can't be denied. Also undeniable are the definitions of murder and homicide, which have always been limited to killing born humans for malicious reasons in both English dictionaries and books about law. So the abortion debate is not about if the right to have abortions does exist, but everything else - sociology, biology, maternity, crimes, and personal finance.

Where is it very clear in the United States Constitution that says that zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses have no rights?

 

[Bodi]

There is one that is 100% effective. Don't have sexual intercourse.

Wrong. That is not 100% effective.

The idea that people are entitled to have sexual intercourse with zero risk of pregnancy and if medical science can't provide that they are justified in killing the unborn result of the pregnancy seems to not really be getting to the root of the issue. It's not justified or not because medical science can make it risk-proof or not to have sexual intercourse. It has to be justified or not for reasons other than that.

It is.

 

[Lursa]

I would think that's perfectly fine.

ETA: It's done on horses fairly often ie. when an undesirable stallion got to the mare, when she's carrying twins, etc.

Well that's bullshit, it's very uncommon to intentionally abort an equine...good lord! That's just dishonest.

It's fairly dangerous to the mare, since verifying pregnancy usually occurs later in gestation.

 

[Lursa]

Where is it very clear in the United States Constitution that says that zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses have no rights?

Again? At least I have it all saved. Start here:

14th Amendment, Section 1​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Then let's look at some specifics:

"On 22 January 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court declared that an unborn child enjoys no constitutional protection before he or she emerges from the womb. Even after viability, the fetus in utero counts only as a "potentiality of human life.""​

​

--and--​

​

The Supreme Court’s abortion rulings include four principal elements: 1. The unborn child is a non-person and therefore has no constitutional rights​

​

http://www.uffl.org/vol 9/rice9.pdf​

There's more of course, but it's not necessarily worth taking more time.

 

[BroHaHa]

Wrong. That is not 100% effective.

It is.

I kind of feel like I'm going to regret replying to something this stupid (and I won't bother to reply to the first assertion on that basis), but no, it isn't.

For those conditions to morally justify abortion you would have to be morally entitled to have sexual intercourse with zero risk of pregnancy.

And that moral entitlement obviously doesn't exist.

There are arguments for justifying abortion. Some are good, some are bad, some in the middle. That's not one of them.

 

[BroHaHa]

Is that what you call reality?

That was so long ago that I hardly remember those years.

Then you are simply unintelligent. Sorry about that for you.

 

[BroHaHa]

I have a problem with any anti-abortion advocate who isn't a strict vegetarian. Anyone for some bacon and eggs?

I have a problem with any Climate Change advocate who isn't a vegan.

I'm a vegan, by the way. You?

 

[BroHaHa]

I provided examples....we have laws that prosecute felonies against people that kill the pets and/or livestock of others while not recognizing rights for those other animals.

Claiming that something exists is not providing an example. You claim they exist, I'm now asking for specific examples. You've cited one, thanks for that.

Here's one. I'm not going to bother finding others.

RCW 16.52.205: Animal cruelty in the first degree.

app.leg.wa.gov

So we can talk about this one. Actually, we already have a few pages earlier. You said:

Yes, the state is acting on behalf of the mother and/or state. The charges are about the harm and loss to them.

There's legal precedence to charge people with felonies: for killing other people's pets and livestock. But it recognizes no legal status or rights for those other animals. The charges are brought on behalf of their owners, for loss and damages. (even tho those owners can kill their own pets/livestock legally).

And I said that legal recourse for loss of property was a civil matter, and you said no because there were felony penalties for destroying livestock/pets and I said that we should examine them because if the law protects those animals for the reasons you cited and they are in any way similar to the vehicular homicide laws you were comparing them to originally, then we would have to conclude that the vehicular homicide laws considered the unborn baby to be property.

Now, all that said, I see no evidence in the specific law that you cited that the protection is to the owner to prevent any loss to the owner, as you claimed. It reads to me to be entirely to protect the animals from excessive and/or undue suffering. Is that not how it reads to you?

If so, what you've done is provide an example of a law that exists—a felony, no less—for the purpose of protecting livestock/pets on their own behalf. Which is completely contradictory to the reason you claimed they existed originally. Whether you interpret that to mean that the right to live without being tortured is implied or whether you interpret it to mean that the law seeks to protect them without conferring any rights to them is another matter. You are the one who brought these laws up and used them as a basis to claim that the unborn is entitled neither to rights nor protection without rights, and it sure seems to me that they support my case instead, which is that the law hasn't evolved sufficiently to be consistent on this issue and therefore is not dispositive of the matter.

If you want to substantiate that I'm wrong...then it's up to you to show anywhere where any state recognizes rights for the unborn in those fetal homicide laws. I 'cant' do more because I cant produce something that doesnt exist

You keep posting some more specific laws and I will keep doing so.

WHat do you disagree with that I 'asserted' in my examples using pets and livestock? I just 'asserted' that felony charges for killing those other animals doesnt mean that those animals have rights.

Not entirely. If you'd like I can go back and quote some more postings from earlier in which we talked about protection sans rights.

It appears you are just treading water here, repeating yourself because you dont want to have to back away from your a) lack of understanding of fetal homicide laws and/or b) dont want to admit that you dont like what you've learned about those laws since you got involved here.

Respond to the above and let's see if that's really what it looks like is happening here.

You should admit that you've learned something...always admirable...and then move on.

And I think you should not be so sure of yourself. Always admirable.

 

[prometeus]

Then you are simply unintelligent. Sorry about that for you.

Because I pointed out your stupidity? I bet you are sorry about that.

 

[NWRatCon]

Claiming that something exists is not providing an example. You claim they exist, I'm now asking for specific examples. You've cited one, thanks for that.

So we can talk about this one. Actually, we already have a few pages earlier. You said:



And I said that legal recourse for loss of property was a civil matter, and you said no because there were felony penalties for destroying livestock/pets and I said that we should examine them because if the law protects those animals for the reasons you cited and they are in any way similar to the vehicular homicide laws you were comparing them to originally, then we would have to conclude that the vehicular homicide laws considered the unborn baby to be property.

Now, all that said, I see no evidence in the specific law that you cited that the protection is to the owner to prevent any loss to the owner, as you claimed. It reads to me to be entirely to protect the animals from excessive and/or undue suffering. Is that not how it reads to you?

If so, what you've done is provide an example of a law that exists—a felony, no less—for the purpose of protecting livestock/pets on their own behalf. Which is completely contradictory to the reason you claimed they existed originally. Whether you interpret that to mean that the right to live without being tortured is implied or whether you interpret it to mean that the law seeks to protect them without conferring any rights to them is another matter. You are the one who brought these laws up and used them as a basis to claim that the unborn is entitled neither to rights nor protection without rights, and it sure seems to me that they support my case instead, which is that the law hasn't evolved sufficiently to be consistent on this issue and therefore is not dispositive of the matter.

You keep posting some more specific laws and I will keep doing so.

Not entirely. If you'd like I can go back and quote some more postings from earlier in which we talked about protection sans rights.

Respond to the above and let's see if that's really what it looks like is happening here.


And I think you should not be so sure of yourself. Always admirable.

Hmm. A truly dizzying intellect.

Here's where your argument fails: "(4) The agency having custody of the animal may euthanize the animal or may find a responsible person to adopt the animal not less than fifteen business days after the animal is taken into custody. A custodial agency may euthanize severely injured, diseased, or suffering animals at any time. " I know of no adoption agency in the United States that follows this process. I'm open to counter-examples. What follows is the explanation: "An owner may prevent the animal's destruction or adoption by: (a) Petitioning the district court of the county where the animal was seized for the animal's immediate return subject to court-imposed conditions, or (b) posting a bond or security in an amount sufficient to provide for the animal's care for a minimum of thirty days from the seizure date."

RCW 16.52.085​

Removal of animals for feeding and care—Examination—Notice—Euthanasia.​

Here's the problem with your analysis: with the animal cruelty law, we're controlling the behavior of humans. The animal has no agency in the process. It's about protection of a property interest. Are you advocating for a parallel process in the treatment of humans? That could be an interesting discussion.

 

[danielpalos]

Better reversible contraception technologies at lower cost!

 

[Bodi]

I kind of feel like I'm going to regret replying to something this stupid

And yet you seem to agree with me...

, but no, it isn't.

It isn't.

For those conditions to morally justify abortion you would have to be morally entitled to have sexual intercourse with zero risk of pregnancy.

And that moral entitlement obviously doesn't exist.

There are arguments for justifying abortion. Some are good, some are bad, some in the middle. That's not one of them.

Morality is irrelevant in this issue... or close enough to irrelevant to not try and include it in the argument.

 

[danielpalos]

Better reversible contraception technologies may happen sooner by BOINC-ing for crypto.

BOINC

BOINC is an open-source software platform for computing using volunteered resources

boinc.berkeley.edu

 

[choiceone]

Again? At least I have it all saved. Start here:

14th Amendment, Section 1​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Then let's look at some specifics:

"On 22 January 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court declared that an unborn child enjoys no constitutional protection before he or she emerges from the womb. Even after viability, the fetus in utero counts only as a "potentiality of human life.""​

​

--and--​

​

The Supreme Court’s abortion rulings include four principal elements: 1. The unborn child is a non-person and therefore has no constitutional rights​

​

http://www.uffl.org/vol 9/rice9.pdf​

There's more of course, but it's not necessarily worth taking more time.

Actually, it is worth taking more time. The fact that the unborn are not persons is not simply based on the abortion rulings. The justices on the SC at the time of Roe v Wade all agreed that the unborn are not persons in the meaning of the 14th Amendment, i.e., even the two justices who dissented from the majority opinion agreed on this.

According to Ratcom, who is/was a lawyer, the word "person" is used in the Constitution 94 times, I think. None of the uses can be applied to the unborn.

The unborn appear to have some rights, e.g., of inheritance, but they are all contingent on being born alive.

Suppose an unmarried pregnant woman left the US and went to a country selling economic citizenship which allowed citizenship to come through in three months. She could, if money were no object, pay for citizenship, get it in three months, and go to the US embassy and renounce her US citizenship. When she gave birth, she could say that the father was unknown and her child would get the citizenship of that country.

All countries in this world recognize that birth is the point at which offspring have a right to citizenship.
The US never used any way of calculating age except starting from birth.

The unborn simply have no rights of their own, and it's a good thing, because they live as part of the woman's body until they are born.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I have a problem with any Climate Change advocate who isn't a vegan.

I'm a vegan, by the way. You?

You don't need to be a vegan to support the environment. People stop consuming animal products because of how the animals are treated and killed.

 

[Lursa]

Claiming that something exists is not providing an example. You claim they exist, I'm now asking for specific examples. You've cited one, thanks for that.

So we can talk about this one. Actually, we already have a few pages earlier. You said:



And I said that legal recourse for loss of property was a civil matter, and you said no because there were felony penalties for destroying livestock/pets and I said that we should examine them because if the law protects those animals for the reasons you cited and they are in any way similar to the vehicular homicide laws you were comparing them to originally, then we would have to conclude that the vehicular homicide laws considered the unborn baby to be property.

Now, all that said, I see no evidence in the specific law that you cited that the protection is to the owner to prevent any loss to the owner, as you claimed. It reads to me to be entirely to protect the animals from excessive and/or undue suffering. Is that not how it reads to you?

If so, what you've done is provide an example of a law that exists—a felony, no less—for the purpose of protecting livestock/pets on their own behalf. Which is completely contradictory to the reason you claimed they existed originally. Whether you interpret that to mean that the right to live without being tortured is implied or whether you interpret it to mean that the law seeks to protect them without conferring any rights to them is another matter. You are the one who brought these laws up and used them as a basis to claim that the unborn is entitled neither to rights nor protection without rights, and it sure seems to me that they support my case instead, which is that the law hasn't evolved sufficiently to be consistent on this issue and therefore is not dispositive of the matter.

You keep posting some more specific laws and I will keep doing so.

Not entirely. If you'd like I can go back and quote some more postings from earlier in which we talked about protection sans rights.

Respond to the above and let's see if that's really what it looks like is happening here.


And I think you should not be so sure of yourself. Always admirable.

That's a lot of typing to agree that you got what you requested and then to start cherry-picking how something I said wasnt 'the same,' wasnt 'the same'

Lots of words arent going to get your 'arguments' furthered in a discussion...'meaningful, on-focus' ones should.

My point is, no where in any fetal homicide laws are rights recognized for the unborn. I gave you reasons why. You dont like them. I gave you 'similar' example law where there were felonies charged for killing something living that did not recognize rights for those other animals.

Why dont you rephrase your argument...since, probably intentionally...it's been obfuscated in 'all your words'.

 

[maquiscat]

I have a problem with any Climate Change advocate who isn't a vegan.

I'm a vegan, by the way. You?

Are you kidding? Plants are what take CO2 out of the atmosphere. Animals are what add CO2 to the atmosphere. I'm eating the problem, you're eating the solution!

 

[BroHaHa]

Hmm. A truly dizzying intellect.

Here's where your argument fails: "(4) The agency having custody of the animal may euthanize the animal or may find a responsible person to adopt the animal not less than fifteen business days after the animal is taken into custody. A custodial agency may euthanize severely injured, diseased, or suffering animals at any time. " I know of no adoption agency in the United States that follows this process. I'm open to counter-examples. What follows is the explanation: "An owner may prevent the animal's destruction or adoption by: (a) Petitioning the district court of the county where the animal was seized for the animal's immediate return subject to court-imposed conditions, or (b) posting a bond or security in an amount sufficient to provide for the animal's care for a minimum of thirty days from the seizure date."

RCW 16.52.085​

Removal of animals for feeding and care—Examination—Notice—Euthanasia.​

Here's the problem with your analysis: with the animal cruelty law, we're controlling the behavior of humans. The animal has no agency in the process. It's about protection of a property interest. Are you advocating for a parallel process in the treatment of humans? That could be an interesting discussion.

Read the whole conversation—it's too much for me to recap. Your objection is covered in it, and in fact is at the center of it.

 

[BroHaHa]

That's a lot of typing to agree that you got what you requested and then to start cherry-picking how something I said wasnt 'the same,' wasnt 'the same'

Lots of words arent going to get your 'arguments' furthered in a discussion...'meaningful, on-focus' ones should.

My point is, no where in any fetal homicide laws are rights recognized for the unborn. I gave you reasons why. You dont like them. I gave you 'similar' example law where there were felonies charged for killing something living that did not recognize rights for those other animals.

Why dont you rephrase your argument...since, probably intentionally...it's been obfuscated in 'all your words'.

LOL. Most of that typing was recapping what had already been discussed since you pretended you'd forgotten it all. Just like most of the typing below is going to have to address—you acting like you haven't said some of the things you've said. If you'd stop doing that you're right...I wouldn't have to type nearly as much.

Because the unborn not having rights has not been your only point, and you know it. You claimed that animals were only legally protected on the basis of protecting the property owner and clearly—given your own supplied example and the quoted part above that is untrue—they are clearly protected on their own behalf as well.

And just as obviously, using the basis for your entire argument, the unborn therefore don't need rights in order to be protected, therefore your "only point" is moot. The law protects animals from cruelty without the necessity of conferring them rights and on their own behalf, therefore it can do the same for unborn humans, and in fact may be the basis for the vehicular homicide laws we've touched on. You've argued that that can't be the case because of the animal laws, but the animals laws—once specified—do not show what you've claimed.

Finally, claiming we have all of these laws that prove your point, then refusing to supply any specifics to back up your claim, then posting one example which didn't go the way you thought it would go, THEN accusing ME of cherry picking because I commented on the one specific example you grudgingly gave, is the height of hilarity.

Why don't you stop telling me how to uphold my end of the conversation and tend to your own? You've got plenty of problems of your own without worrying so much about mine.

 

[BroHaHa]

You don't need to be a vegan to support the environment. People stop consuming animal products because of how the animals are treated and killed.

Incorrect. Animal farming is the single biggest contributor to climate change there is.

This study is from over ten years ago and there have been many studies since then that have underscored it, but it was one of the first search terms that came up: Global Farm Animal Production and Climate Change

From the study, emphasis mine: "Although much evidence has been amassed on the negative impacts of animal agricultural production on environmental integrity, community sustainability, public health, and animal welfare, the global impacts of this sector have remained largely underestimated and underappreciated. In a recent review of the relevant data, Steinfeld et al. (2006) calculated the sector’s contributions to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and determined them to be so significant that—measured in carbon dioxide equivalent—the emissions from the animal agricultural sector surpass those of the transportation sector."

Here's a much more recent report that concludes that diets are the main determinant of greenhouse gasses: Published in Science Direct

Here's an article that cites a study published in The Journal of Ecological Society that estimates as much as 87% of greenhouse gasses are produced by animal agriculture. I left it in the article instead of linking to the direct study b/c I think you need to read some of the commentary and history of why this study was done, namely, that it has been common knowledge for some time that animal farming has been the chief culprit in greenhouse gasses, but that the extent of it has been vastly underestimated. https://thebeet.com/animal-agriculture-may-be-responsible-for-87-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

Not to mention, giving up animal products the easiest lifestyle choice to make to have the biggest impact on the environment. If you claim to be concerned about climate change and you are not a vegan, you are either very mis-informed (which you seem to be), or aren't really very concerned at all and are just virtue-signaling. There's a lot of that going around. People care hella about the environment until someone asks them to give something they like up for the cause. Then not so much.

 

[BroHaHa]

And yet you seem to agree with me...

It isn't.

Morality is irrelevant in this issue... or close enough to irrelevant to not try and include it in the argument.

I say it is and you say it isn't and we agree? Do tell.

Morality is absolutely relevant in this issue, as it is with any laws involving rights. You're not one of those idiots who claims that someone who thinks that protecting the unborn is "forcing your morality on me," are you? Ignoring that laws against rape and theft and fraud and assault and about a hundred other laws are also codified moral values.

That would be disappointing to discover even of you.

 

[Bodi]

I say it is and you say it isn't and we agree? Do tell.

You said:

but no, it isn't.

Morality is absolutely relevant in this issue,

Not necessarily.

as it is with any laws involving rights.

I can be moral for some and it can be just something that is not in the best interest of people and/or society for others and States.

You're not one of those idiots who claims that someone who thinks that protecting the unborn is "forcing your morality on me," are you?

If you are against abortion for moral reasons... yes.

Ignoring that laws against rape and theft and fraud and assault and about a hundred other laws are also codified moral values.

Depends on how objective a person can be.

That would be disappointing to discover even of you.

This tactic is a waste of time on me...

 

[danielpalos]

Are right-wingers just plain hypocrites regarding "government mandates"?

 

[prometeus]

Are right-wingers just plain hypocrites regarding "government mandates"?

No, not just regarding that, but in general.

 

[Lursa]

Because the unborn not having rights has not been your only point, and you know it.

Um. That's wrong.

You claimed that animals were only legally protected on the basis of protecting the property owner and clearly—given your own supplied example and the quoted part above that is untrue—they are clearly protected on their own behalf as well.

WHere are they protected on their own behalf? Please quote that in the law I provided...and I'm not talking about cruelty, I'm talking about destruction. Which was part of that as well.

And just as obviously, using the basis for your entire argument, the unborn therefore don't need rights in order to be protected, therefore your "only point" is moot.

I never said otherwise. And no it doesnt make my point moot. Rights are a very specific concept, recognized by our Const and indicative of a specific status in our society.

My point re: there are no rights recognized for the unborn in any of those fetal homicide laws is that the unborn are still not recognized as equal to persons.

The law protects animals from cruelty without the necessity of conferring them rights and on their own behalf, therefore it can do the same for unborn humans,

I never really addressed that. I never said otherwise. I didnt say they couldnt be protected if they didnt have rights.

and in fact may be the basis for the vehicular homicide laws we've touched on. You've argued that that can't be the case because of the animal laws, but the animals laws—once specified—do not show what you've claimed.

I've never claimed a single thing 'cant be the case' because of the example about pets/livestock that I provided. I used it as an example of 'what is.' And I dont know what vehicular homicide laws you're referring to. YOu are making crap up now as you go along.

Finally, claiming we have all of these laws that prove your point, then refusing to supply any specifics to back up your claim, then posting one example which didn't go the way you thought it would go, THEN accusing ME of cherry picking because I commented on the one specific example you grudgingly gave, is the height of hilarity.

My example stands, you didnt show otherwise. And I didnt say 'there are all these laws.' I provided a single example to show that it's not necessary for a living thing to have rights to be protected by the law. Which you seem to agree with. And then you found fault with my reasoning that the charges were brought on behalf of the owners...since they are often compensated financially for those losses, I'm not sure why you took offense there or denied my point, but

Look how triggered you are. You are so lost here it's sad.

Why don't you stop telling me how to uphold my end of the conversation and tend to your own? You've got plenty of problems of your own without worrying so much about mine.

Wow. If you're having such a miserable time having this discussion, I suggest you stop discussing!