Abortion: How Conservatives and Liberals got it wrong

[Lursa]

It literally does not imply that. And I can't be any more clear. You are projecting the argument you wish you could use against me. But what you are saying literally makes *no sense* in response to what I have written.

So you believe that the born and unborn are equal? Yes or no?

I am just trying to show the implications of the answer to that question, whichever the answer, as the question is not an abstract. If the unborn were somehow considered legally equal, then there would be major consequences on society.

 

[Bazzgazzer]

Look, anyone with even a quarter of a damn brain understands that giving all people, more CHOICES, is the absolute opposite of discrimination.

As I stated earlier, bazzgazzer is trying hard to pass off twisted logic, but failing completely.

I've been debating this subject for a very long time, and this may be the best piece of asinine garbage I have ever come across. With the added ironic insult, I almost have to believe you are a troll satirizing the absurdities of pro-choice thought and tactics.

In any event, before we even get into politics, let's just talk about the word choice and the word discrimination. These words are pretty much mean the same thing. Absolute choice would mean the absolute ability to discriminate. We live in a more equal society BECAUSE we limit choices. We limited the ability of government and business to not serve individuals based on race, sexual orientation, gender etc.

 

[Lursa]

It's actually very sound logic. Perhaps the biggest piece of the puzzle that pro-choicers miss is that life is a continuum. Once it starts, it doesn't stop until death. That's why pro-choice logic is so troubling. Because it applies a static methodology (person = someone with a pre-determined level of cognition) to a dynamic situation (the development of a human organism from existence to death). It's like concluding your morality from a photo when that problem at hand is a video.

So again, given that an individual's life is a continuum that starts at conception and ends at death, saying that its "ok to kill" on one side of that continuum and "not ok to kill" on another side of that continuum is discrimination. No different than dividing individuals into gay and straight, black and white or man and woman, and treating one of those parties better than the other.

We do know this, most of us are quite well aware of 8th grade human development.

But who says the unborn should have equal status in our society and that women should have their rights superseded by the unborn's?

Science is objective...it applies no value. People...and law...apply value and that is subjective.

So you are again demonstrating that your opinion is that the unborn have more value than women and would be willing to see us again treated...by the law...as 2nd class citizens.

Again....what compelling reasons can you offer to the SC to change their decision in RvW? One that continues to recognize the court's obligation to uphold everyone else's Constitutional rights as well? (I've asked twice already...is there a reason you havent answered this yet?)

 

[Bazzgazzer]

So you believe that the born and unborn are equal? Yes or no?

I am just trying to show the implications of the answer to that question, whichever the answer, as the question is not an abstract. If the unborn were somehow considered legally equal, then there would be major consequences on society.

I believe that the right not to be killed applies equally to the born and the unborn. If you are going to claim that there are certain implications of this view, please support them rather than state them.

 

[Lursa]

Imagine if you had said: "You have not demonstrated why it's discrimination to kill black people. They have no rights and are not equal".

It's begging the question.

The unborn *should* have rights and their right to life is equal to any other human beings.

Who says? The SC examined equal rights for blacks and for women and found them/us to be equal. With the full historical context behind those decions, the medical facts, and the obligations to protect people instilled in the Contitution, they did NOT find that the unborn are equal and deserving of rights.

So again the questions arise: why should women have their rights suborned to the unborn? They cannot be treated equally. What compelling reasons can you provide to the SC to get them to change the decision? If you want them to accept *your opinion* there has to be a solid Constitutional foundation for doing so.

 

[Lursa]

I believe that the right not to be killed applies equally to the born and the unborn. If you are going to claim that there are certain implications of this view, please support them rather than state them.

Of course. In order for the govt to protect the rights of the unborn, then the medical privacy of every woman in the US would be violated, from the time they are of reproductive age. And there would be no due process for that...as being a female is not a crime, nor is being pregnant. Esp if any pregnant woman went to the Dr. And any time there was a miscarriage, which is 15-20% of every pregnancy.

(WIth the accuracy of pregnancy tests today, a woman could just take 2 or 3 and be sure of her status and never see a Dr at all. It would drive unwanted pregnancies underground and women would just go to CA or Mexico or nice comfy ships right off-shore, paid for by all the private funds that used to go to legal abortions, and have legal abortions there.)

If the govt is tasked with protecting the life of the unborn equally, then women's activities, diets, etc could be monitored. Should a pregnant woman be able to ride a horse? Skydive? Even now, would a woman be allowed to take her 3 month old skydiving?

Now...since 87,000 women die or experience severe health damage (stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, etc) every yr in the US. (**this is with therapeutic abortion allowed...women would do this if the health complications arose**) So obviously, not all complications can be predicted or prevented....even with therapeutic abortion available. So this is a significant risk to ALL pregnant women. How would the govt protect these women's lives? How would it protect the lives of women EQUALLY with the lives of the unborn? How would you feel if the govt demanded you take such risks against your will?

Those are just a few.

 

[Removable Mind]

Ok, so what? You are just providing additional invalid reasons to try to support why it's ok to discriminate against someone based on disability. Imagine if I said only 15% of people make it to age 85, so therefore its ok to indiscriminately kill anyone over 85. That's basically what you just did.

Woman's choice, no reasons necessary to have an abortion.

Your post is a red herring. Not relevant to any legal point related to discrimination. The yet to be born aren't protected from discrimination.

 

[Bazzgazzer]

Who says? The SC examined equal rights for blacks and for women and found them/us to be equal. With the full historical context behind those decions, the medical facts, and the obligations to protect people instilled in the Contitution, they did NOT find that the unborn are equal and deserving of rights.

So again the questions arise: why should women have their rights suborned to the unborn? They cannot be treated equally. What compelling reasons can you provide to the SC to get them to change the decision? If you want them to accept *your opinion* there has to be a solid Constitutional foundation for doing so.

Strictly speaking, the SC has never considered whether or not the unborn are deserving of equal rights; they punted the question as too complicated in Roe V. Wade (surprise, surprise)

If I was the one responsible making the case to the SC, my argument would be based on the 14th amendment. I would argue that just as allowing the killing of 2 years old violates the equal protection of the law so to does allowing the freedom to kill nascent human being. I would argue that abortion is a form of age discrimination.

I would remind the court that the constitution defines a citizen as a PERSON born or naturalized. While this wording DOES preclude a fetus from being a citizen of the united states, it does not preclude defining the unborn as a person. Just as there are unnaturalized persons, the language leaves open the possibility that there unborn persons. And in the same way the citizens of the US are not permitted to kill unnaturalized persons, so too should citizens of the US not be permitted to to kill unborn persons.

I would then argue that the illegalization of abortion (properly applied) does not violate the equal protection clause. Specifically, I would argue that it's a non-sequitur. I would argue that laws regulating pregnancy, provided they have a legitimate state interest, cannot be a violation of the equal protection clause because the goal is to pursue a legitimate state interest and the fact that pregnancy only affects women is a fact over which the government has no control. It would be like claiming the ACA violates the equal protection clause because it doesn't mandate that the morning after pill be covered for men. It's a non-sequitur. I would then argue that the state has a legitimate state interest in combatting age discrimination.

 

[Lursa]

1. Sorry you don't understand what words mean still. That black part your telling me the fetus is a human. If the fetus isn't a human then what is it then? where you're located does not determine what you are.

You are looking rather ridiculous here. She said you didnt read or understand properly and you demonstrated that again here. She DID provide and acknowlege the scientific fact that the unborn, the fetus is a human. So you deliberately or incompetantly questioned her on the opposite. Why?

 

[Removable Mind]

Strictly speaking, the SC has never considered whether or not the unborn are deserving of equal rights; they punted the question as too complicated in Roe V. Wade (surprise, surprise)

If I was the one responsible making the case to the SC, my argument would be based on the 14th amendment. I would argue that just as allowing the killing of 2 years old violates the equal protection of the law so to does allowing the freedom to kill nascent human being. I would argue that abortion is a form of age discrimination.

I would remind the court that the constitution defines a citizen as a PERSON born or naturalized. While this wording DOES preclude a fetus from being a citizen of the united states, it does not preclude defining the unborn as a person. Just as there are unnaturalized persons, the language leaves open the possibility that there unborn persons. And in the same way the citizens of the US are not permitted to kill unnaturalized persons, so too should citizens of the US not be permitted to to kill unborn persons.

I would then argue that the illegalization of abortion (properly applied) does not violate the equal protection clause. Specifically, I would argue that it's a non-sequitur. I would argue that laws regulating pregnancy, provided they have a legitimate state interest, cannot be a violation of the equal protection clause because the goal is to pursue a legitimate state interest and the fact that pregnancy only affects women is a fact over which the government has no control. It would be like claiming the ACA violates the equal protection clause because it doesn't mandate that the morning after pill be covered for men. It's a non-sequitur. I would then argue that the state has a legitimate state interest in combatting age discrimination.

Wrong. All persons protected by the Constitution are born, naturalized or not. Even undocumented persons have some Constitutional rights.

You're fishing in the wrong pond.

 

[Bazzgazzer]

Wrong. All persons protected by the Constitution are born, naturalized or not. Even undocumented persons have some Constitutional rights.

You're fishing in the wrong pond.

So it's constitutional to kill undocumented persons? Foreign citizens visiting the US? We can snipe them for sport?

 

[Removable Mind]

So it's constitutional to kill undocumented persons? Foreign citizens visiting the US? We can snipe them for sport?

False equivalence.

I clearly said undocumented persons do have Constitutional rights.

Your failing badly with your killing analogies.

 

[Lursa]

Strictly speaking, the SC has never considered whether or not the unborn are deserving of equal rights; they punted the question as too complicated in Roe V. Wade (surprise, surprise)

Yes they did and they weighed that decision against the privacy and health of the mother.

If I was the one responsible making the case to the SC, my argument would be based on the 14th amendment. I would argue that just as allowing the killing of 2 years old violates the equal protection of the law so to does allowing the freedom to kill nascent human being. I would argue that abortion is a form of age discrimination.

Based on what? What criteria are you changing to include the unborn with the born 2 yr old?

Our entire society recognizes clear distinctions, example: the majority of pro-life supporters find abortion acceptable in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's health. Why? If the unborn is the same as a 2 yr old or a 2 month old, why can we kill the unborn at all? Why cant we kill a 2 yr old, to harvest its liver to save that of its mother?

I would remind the court that the constitution defines a citizen as a PERSON born or naturalized. While this wording DOES preclude a fetus from being a citizen of the united states, it does not preclude defining the unborn as a person. Just as there are unnaturalized persons, the language leaves open the possibility that there unborn persons. And in the same way the citizens of the US are not permitted to kill unnaturalized persons, so too should citizens of the US not be permitted to to kill unborn persons.

And it does not include it either. Again...why the assumption it should be? Based on what criteria? And the US govt has clearly defined 'person.'

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

I would then argue that the illegalization of abortion (properly applied) does not violate the equal protection clause. Specifically, I would argue that it's a non-sequitur. I would argue that laws regulating pregnancy, provided they have a legitimate state interest, cannot be a violation of the equal protection clause because the goal is to pursue a legitimate state interest and the fact that pregnancy only affects women is a fact over which the government has no control. It would be like claiming the ACA violates the equal protection clause because it doesn't mandate that the morning after pill be covered for men. It's a non-sequitur. I would then argue that the state has a legitimate state interest in combatting age discrimination.

So you have not provided anything but something along the lines of 'but I want the unborn included' but the reasons you gave do not in any way override the govts obligations to protect women's Constitutional rights nor why the unborn meet the 'bar' of personhood. And I gave a very good reason why they dont:

Before birth, the unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.

The unborn have NO rights they can exercise independently, their (imagined) rights are completely dependent on the mother.

And here's a more practical and non-arbitrary reason:

After birth is when someone's rights can be upheld without violating the rights of someone else (without due process). The born may be cared for by society....the rights of a woman do not need to be violated to do so once born. Society cannot do so before birth, without her consent.

The unborn begin to manipulate and interact with society the moment they are born.

 

[Lursa]

So it's constitutional to kill undocumented persons? Foreign citizens visiting the US? We can snipe them for sport?

He said 'some.' They cant vote either. We know that. We know the subject area.

 

[Lursa]

Woman's choice, no reasons necessary to have an abortion.

Your post is a red herring. Not relevant to any legal point related to discrimination. The yet to be born aren't protected from discrimination.

I did write that earlier too, that no reason is needed. He's using an appeal to emotion.

 

[Bazzgazzer]

Of course. In order for the govt to protect the rights of the unborn, then the medical privacy of every woman in the US would be violated, from the time they are of reproductive age. And there would be no due process for that...as being a female is not a crime, nor is being pregnant. Esp if any pregnant woman went to the Dr. And any time there was a miscarriage, which is 15-20% of every pregnancy.

(WIth the accuracy of pregnancy tests today, a woman could just take 2 or 3 and be sure of her status and never see a Dr at all. It would drive unwanted pregnancies underground and women would just go to CA or Mexico or nice comfy ships right off-shore, paid for by all the private funds that used to go to legal abortions, and have legal abortions there.)

If the govt is tasked with protecting the life of the unborn equally, then women's activities, diets, etc could be monitored. Should a pregnant woman be able to ride a horse? Skydive? Even now, would a woman be allowed to take her 3 month old skydiving?

Now...since 87,000 women die or experience severe health damage (stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, etc) every yr in the US. (**this is with therapeutic abortion allowed...women would do this if the health complications arose**) So obviously, not all complications can be predicted or prevented....even with therapeutic abortion available. So this is a significant risk to ALL pregnant women. How would the govt protect these women's lives? How would it protect the lives of women EQUALLY with the lives of the unborn? How would you feel if the govt demanded you take such risks against your will?

Those are just a few.

Why would any of this follow? I 100% agree being a woman is not a crime and being pregnant is 100% not a crime. Also, being a parent is 100% not a crime. So in the same way you need more than just knowing someone is a parent to prove child abuse, you would need way more that just the existence of a pregnancy to prove the intent to kill a fetus.

Further, I don't think the presence of a miscarriage is enough to warrant on investigation. It shouldn't surprise anyone that both early life and late life are inherently dangerous. The death of an embryo or fetus, just like the death of a 90 year old would not need to be investigated unless there were obvious aggravating factors.

"
If the govt is tasked with protecting the life of the unborn equally, then women's activities, diets, etc could be monitored. Should a pregnant woman be able to ride a horse? Skydive? Even now, would a woman be allowed to take her 3 month old skydiving? "

Now for a moment of agreement. I do agree that if the pro-life movement is successful in its fight against the prejudice against the unborn, the specific mainfestation of those laws and restrictions matter a great deal. And there are definitely certain versions of pro-life laws that I would not support. I wouldn't support any law that allows the personal habits of individual women (like smoking, skydiving, etc etc etc). I am not interested in policing the millions of risks inherent in life, I am interested in outlawing the clear intentional practice of killing nascent human beings.

 

[Lursa]

Why would any of this follow? I 100% agree being a woman is not a crime and being pregnant is 100% not a crime. Also, being a parent is 100% not a crime. So in the same way you need more than just knowing someone is a parent to prove child abuse, you would need way more that just the existence of a pregnancy to prove the intent to kill a fetus.

Further, I don't think the presence of a miscarriage is enough to warrant on investigation. It shouldn't surprise anyone that both early life and late life are inherently dangerous. The death of an embryo or fetus, just like the death of a 90 year old would not need to be investigated unless there were obvious aggravating factors.

"
If the govt is tasked with protecting the life of the unborn equally, then women's activities, diets, etc could be monitored. Should a pregnant woman be able to ride a horse? Skydive? Even now, would a woman be allowed to take her 3 month old skydiving? "

Now for a moment of agreement. I do agree that if the pro-life movement is successful in its fight against the prejudice against the unborn, the specific mainfestation of those laws and restrictions matter a great deal. And there are definitely certain versions of pro-life laws that I would not support. I wouldn't support any law that allows the personal habits of individual women (like smoking, skydiving, etc etc etc). I am not interested in policing the millions of risks inherent in life, I am interested in outlawing the clear intentional practice of killing nascent human beings.

Apparently, from this, you do not understand what it would mean if the unborn were accorded personhood and the rights recognized that come along with it. All the things you say 'you wouldnt want to see' would be an obligation of the govt to protect. Your efforts to deny the actual impacts on women are noted....it's nice you think it's 'enough' to say, "oh we wouldnt investigate," until of course....the govt does. "Oh we wouldnt stop women from doing that,"...until they do. Because they would have the right to do so, and the obligation.

If the unborn have a right to life...then the govt is obligated to protect it. Like I said...I've never come across a single pro-life supporter that could actually either understand the implications of this or was willing to confront them. Because then they have to confront the *actual* impacts on women. And society.

Edit: no, there are a very few pro-lifers that do understand and are completely direct in that they dont care what happens to pregnant women, their lives, or their rights. That the basic first breath of the unborn is all that counts (and not much care about it after that.)

 

[countryboy]

I do not think you would have a great backlash from the left for your proposal (some, but not huge.....as long as past 16 weeks there was clear accommodation for maternal health and a fetus with major medical issues.)

You would have SIGNIFICANT backlash from the right,

Bull ****ing ****. The pro aborts vehemently oppose any restrictions on abortion whatsoever. But you already knew that.

 

[Lursa]

Bull ****ing ****. The pro aborts vehemently oppose any restrictions on abortion whatsoever. But you already knew that.

What restrictions do you propose? We've already covered that none are needed for elective late term abortions because they dont take place. Several states and Canada dont have any restriction and they do not have more abortions.

What else would you like?

 

[Bazzgazzer]

Apparently, from this, you do not understand what it would mean if the unborn were accorded personhood and the rights recognized that come along with it. All the things you say 'you wouldnt want to see' would be an obligation of the govt to protect. Your efforts to deny the actual impacts on women are noted....it's nice you think it's 'enough' to say, "oh we wouldnt investigate," until of course....the govt does. "Oh we wouldnt stop women from doing that,"...until they do. Because they would have the right to do so, and the obligation.

If the unborn have a right to life...then the govt is obligated to protect it. Like I said...I've never come across a single pro-life supporter that could actually either understand the implications of this or was willing to confront them. Because then they have to confront the *actual* impacts on women. And society.

Edit: no, there are a very few pro-lifers that do understand and are completely direct in that they dont care what happens to pregnant women, their lives, or their rights. That the basic first breath of the unborn is all that counts (and not much care about it after that.)

As a conservative, I can certainly relate to the concern of the slippery slope of government power. I worry about it in other arenas and I worry about it here, but I don't think the implications you bring up logically follow from the right not to be killed. Are they possibilities? Sure, I concede that. The government already has the obligation to protect the right to life of born citizens and this doesn't grant them unlimited power to search anyone's house or take all measures over any other concerns to protect it. So it's extremely suspicious that you would assert some random granting of unlimited power of the government if the right not to be killed for the unborn were protected. What makes this one so unique?

 

[Lursa]

As a conservative, I can certainly relate to the concern of the slippery slope of government power. I worry about it in other arenas and I worry about it here, but I don't think the implications you bring up logically follow from the right not to be killed. Are they possibilities? Sure, I concede that. The government already has the obligation to protect the right to life of born citizens and this doesn't grant them unlimited power to search anyone's house or take all measures over any other concerns to protect it. So it's extremely suspicious that you would assert some random granting of unlimited power of the government if the right not to be killed for the unborn were protected. What makes this one so unique?

So you would willingly allow the diminishment of women's rights in order to accord them to the unborn...you just admitted so. It would see women relegated to 2nd class citizens again, without our rights subordinate to the unborn.

You certainly have no moral High Road with this opinion. It wont happen either, btw....women will not be reduced to some historical subservient role...we have enjoyed our equality and will not give it up.

You still bob and weave around the fact that they cannot be treated equally.

You have never addressed my posts that showed that life is more than just breathing, and that the unborn are not equal simply because they have no rights that they can exercise independently. IMO, you base your opinion on emotion....and that is generous. Because most likely it is actually also a great disrespect for women.

P.S. Do you not see here on the forum, plainly, that there would be those that would direct the govt to do 'everything' to prevent women from having abortions...and all the rights violations that would to along with making that possible?

 

[Bazzgazzer]

So you would willingly allow the diminishment of women's rights in order to accord them to the unborn...you just admitted so. It would see women relegated to 2nd class citizens again, without our rights subordinate to the unborn.

You certainly have no moral High Road with this opinion. It wont happen either, btw....women will not be reduced to some historical subservient role...we have enjoyed our equality and will not give it up.

You still bob and weave around the fact that they cannot be treated equally.

You have never addressed my posts that showed that life is more than just breathing, and that the unborn are not equal simply because they have no rights that they can exercise independently. IMO, you base your opinion on emotion....and that is generous. Because most likely it is actually also a great disrespect for women.

P.S. Do you not see here on the forum, plainly, that there would be those that would direct the govt to do 'everything' to prevent women from having abortions...and all the rights violations that would to along with making that possible?

you are bobbing and weaving as well. How about we each ask one question and the other directly answers it and asks their own.

My question: If the government can't knock your door down and investigate for child abuse just because you are a parent, why do you think it could knock on your door just because you are pregnant?

 

[year2late]

Bull ****ing ****. The pro aborts vehemently oppose any restrictions on abortion whatsoever. But you already knew that.

Of course many if not most are ok with some restrictions. Past viability except with issues with maternal health or severe medical fetal issues.

You will find widespread acceptance of such restriction.

On the other hand prolife is unwilling to compromise at all -some even consider things like bcp as "abortofacient' and want them included in abortion bans. Some want the woman in the throws of death before she would be allowed to end the pregnancy. And if they understood any actual medicine, waiting until someone is in the throws of death to stop a cascade of physiologic devastation will likely go very badly.

 

[Lursa]

you are bobbing and weaving as well. How about we each ask one question and the other directly answers it and asks their own.

My question: If the government can't knock your door down and investigate for child abuse just because you are a parent, why do you think it could knock on your door just because you are pregnant?

Just like when people have a kid...and then they dont...when a woman is pregnant, and then she isnt...people can call the police. That's one pretty obvious way.

People report child abuse all the time...and teachers and doctors are, by law, required to report it.

That's a good example, thanks. And my answers are direct and clear (and mostly saved and just cut and pasted in)...so if you dont understand something, just ask.

But direct answers to my direct questions does help with discussion. And you still have not explained how unborn and born can be treated equally? Nor how you justify (personal opinion is fine) placing the proposed rights of the unborn ahead of those of women?

 

[Bazzgazzer]

Just like when people have a kid...and then they dont...when a woman is pregnant, and then she isnt...people can call the police. That's one pretty obvious way.

People could call the police right now in that situation. The only question here is what would the police do when they receive the call. And I don't think "people have a kid, then don't" and "women is pregnant and then isn't" are the same for the reason I previously stated: the beginning of life and end of life are inherently dangerous. I would agree that having a healthy kid, and then not having it would be sometime that might trigger an investigation. But for the death of a nascent human being you need more. As you've stated miscarriage is not rare, complications are many and the law ought to pay due respect for these concerns and have a very high burdcen of proof before an investigation can commence.

As an aside, I honestly do waffle on the illegalization question. I am seriously concerned about the big brother aspect that *could* result from pro life legislation (again, I don't think it logically follows from my beliefs, but I certainly do see how in the real world, things ain't perfect)

If I was president of the world, what I would probably do is this:

1) Make social abortions a civil rights violation as opposed to a criminal violation (based on my arguments of the right not to be killed and abortion as an act of ageist discrimination).
2) Impose an obligation on medical professionals to collect a financial penalty from the patient for any social abortions performed. The financial penalty goes to the government and funds crisis pregnancy centers.
3) Enforce this obligation on medical professionals but require that that federal government is never entitled to individual patient identity information.

(I'd also pass things like universal pre-natal care and other things)

So my question to you is, in the context of this proposal, how strong still are your concerns regarding police investigations etc. (We do not need to debate whether the unborn have a civil right, I am going to go ahead and assume you believe this not to be the case)

But direct answers to my direct questions does help with discussion. And you still have not explained how unborn and born can be treated equally? Nor how you justify (personal opinion is fine) placing the proposed rights of the unborn ahead of those of women?

The right of the unborn is the right not to be killed.

The right of the woman is the right to bodily autonomy and privacy.

The right of the unborn to not be killed takes precedence because 1) the violation is permanent, since death is final and the violation to the woman is temporary 2) in addition to being a violation of rights, it's a violation of equality (ive provided reasons for why this is so and reasons for why it is not so for the case of the woman 3) if structured properly (e.g. my example above) the violation of her right to bodily autonomy and privacy can be lessened if not eliminated altogether.