• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ad hoc rights are the most questionable

freedomlover

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
63
Reaction score
14
Location
No man's land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Pro-life supporters contend for the idea that every fetus is a person, whereby abortion is the killing of a person and therefore a crime. Yet, a fetus is no person in any other respect. Thus, census bureaus do not count fetuses as members of the population. If someone kills a pregnant woman the killer is not charged with two crimes but with only one. Insurances companies do not ensure a fetus’s life to birth, except as fashion models insure their legs or surgeons ensure their hands, that is, as parts of a body. Fetuses are rarely—if ever—buried in cemeteries. A fetus’s rights are only mentioned as reason to ban abortion. Hhmm…
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
double, see below.
 
Last edited:

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Pro-life supporters contend for the idea that every fetus is a person, whereby abortion is the killing of a person and therefore a crime. Yet, a fetus is no person in any other respect. Thus, census bureaus do not count fetuses as members of the population. If someone kills a pregnant woman the killer is not charged with two crimes but with only one. Insurances companies do not ensure a fetus’s life to birth, except as fashion models insure their legs or surgeons ensure their hands, that is, as parts of a body. Fetuses are rarely—if ever—buried in cemeteries. A fetus’s rights are only mentioned as reason to ban abortion. Hhmm…
Most of your statement is completely false.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SCOTT PETERSON DOUBLE HOMICIDE DEATH PENALTY

Bishop of El Paso presides at funeral of unborn child :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)
Family Mourns Death Of Educator, Daughter, Unborn Child | Today's TMJ4 - Milwaukee, Wisconsin News, Weather, Sports, WTMJ | Local News
Holy Mary, keep me a child’s heart - Catholic Herald
Lawsuit filed over mix-up involving remains of unborn child | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

You need to do some more research.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
State vs. Merrill, 540 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1990)

In a case decided by the Minnesota Supreme court in 1990, the defendant was indicted for first and second degree murder of an unborn child, in violation of a State homicide statute, which defined unborn child as the unborn offspring of a human being, conceived but not yet born, and which provided a punishment of up to 40 years in prison. The defendant had shot a woman in the stomach who died from the gunshot wounds. An autopsy revealed that she was pregnant with a 27- 28-day-old embryo, which the coroner concluded had no abnormality, which would have caused a miscarriage, and that the death of the embryo resulted from the death of the woman. It was unclear whether or not the woman or her assailant were aware of the pregnancy. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, based on denial of equal protection in failing to distinguish between a viable and nonviable fetus or embryo and also alleged vagueness. The defendant further claimed that he was subjected to possible punishment, while others could intentionally terminate the existence of a fetus or embryo without criminal sanctions. The court distinguished between these situations, stating that fetal homicide statutes seek to protect the potentiality of human life, they do so without impinging directly or indirectly on a pregnant woman's privacy rights. The court held that the possibility that female homicide victim may be pregnant is a possibility that an assaulter may not safely exclude and, in a 4-3 decision, upheld the indictment.

State vs. Bauer 471 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. App. 1991)

In a subsequent Minnesota case decided in 1991, a defendant was convicted of violating the fetal homicide statute, in connection with his conviction for assisting in the suicide of his girlfriend who was 6 months pregnant. The defendant claimed that the fetal homicide statute represented an establishment of religion. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the statute had a secular purpose, in part, relying upon a Missouri statutory preamble upheld in Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services17 that life begins at conception as applied to tort, property and criminal laws.

People vs. Davis, 872 P.2d 591 (Cal.1994)

In a 1994 California case, a California homicide statute, which provided that murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus with malice aforethought, was upheld. The court, after an extensive review, held that the legislature may constitutionally criminalize the murder of a fetus without imposing a viability requirement, at least where the fetus has progressed beyond the embryonic stage of 7-8 weeks.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Adams vs. Weinberger, .521 F.2d 656 (1975)

Unborn children are entitled to receive social security benefits. In a 1975 Federal case brought by the natural mother and decided by the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, an illegitimate unborn child was held to be entitled to social security benefits, due to the father's death, based on the needs of the unborn child at the time of his father's death.
 

OKgrannie

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
4,309
Reaction score
3,292
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Your links show that sometimes, some places, a murderer who murders a pregnant woman is charged with two crimes. They also show that sometimes, some places, although nothing shows it to be commonplace, a fetus is mourned with a funeral and perhaps burial. You are still left with the census and insurance questions.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Your links show that sometimes, some places, a murderer who murders a pregnant woman is charged with two crimes. They also show that sometimes, some places, although nothing shows it to be commonplace, a fetus is mourned with a funeral and perhaps burial. You are still left with the census and insurance questions.
Real research takes a bit of time, Grannie.

Sobeck vs. Centennial Insurance Co. 560 A.2d 1309 (N.J. Super. L. 1988)
In a 1988 New Jersey case, the mother of a child who prematurely delivered after she was involved in an automobile accident at approximately 21-weeks gestation sued her insurance company seeking expenses associated with the infant's care, treatment, and hospitalization under personal protection benefits. The preponderance of the evidence supported the conclusion that stress related to the accident caused the premature birth. The child weighed 840 grams at birth and experienced numerous difficulties associated with premature birth, such as respiratory distress, sepsis, intracranial hemorrhage and retinopathy. The court held that the unborn child was an "eligible insured person" within the meaning of the personal injury protection endorsement and was also a "resident of the same household as the named insured" (her mother), and ordered the insurance company to pay the reasonable and necessary expense of $105,387.

p.s. Over half of US states have fetal homicide laws on the books, half of the remainder have prosecuted (and won) cases of double homicide involving an unborn child based on other existing laws. Commonplace? How blatant does a thing have to be before you see it?
 
Last edited:

freedomlover

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
63
Reaction score
14
Location
No man's land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Real research takes a bit of time, Grannie.

Sobeck vs. Centennial Insurance Co. 560 A.2d 1309 (N.J. Super. L. 1988)
In a 1988 New Jersey case, the mother of a child who prematurely delivered after she was involved in an automobile accident at approximately 21-weeks gestation sued her insurance company seeking expenses associated with the infant's care, treatment, and hospitalization under personal protection benefits. The preponderance of the evidence supported the conclusion that stress related to the accident caused the premature birth. The child weighed 840 grams at birth and experienced numerous difficulties associated with premature birth, such as respiratory distress, sepsis, intracranial hemorrhage and retinopathy. The court held that the unborn child was an "eligible insured person" within the meaning of the personal injury protection endorsement and was also a "resident of the same household as the named insured" (her mother), and ordered the insurance company to pay the reasonable and necessary expense of $105,387.

p.s. Over half of US states have fetal homicide laws on the books, half of the remainder have prosecuted (and won) cases of double homicide involving an unborn child based on other existing laws. Commonplace? How blatant does a thing have to be before you see it?
Of course, a just born baby is an "eligible insured person" What does it prove?
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Your links show that sometimes, some places, a murderer who murders a pregnant woman is charged with two crimes. They also show that sometimes, some places, although nothing shows it to be commonplace, a fetus is mourned with a funeral and perhaps burial. You are still left with the census and insurance questions.
The census issue is a strawman. The purpose of the census is to gauge the appropriate number of representatives in Congress. The appropriate number of representatives is based on the number of voters each state has, since a voter is over the age of 18, counting unborn children is unnecessary.
 

freedomlover

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
63
Reaction score
14
Location
No man's land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The census issue is a strawman. The purpose of the census is to gauge the appropriate number of representatives in Congress. The appropriate number of representatives is based on the number of voters each state has, since a voter is over the age of 18, counting unborn children is unnecessary.
Therefore, counting people under the age of 18 is unnecesary as well, isn't it?
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Whatever the frequency, they count from birth to death, don't they?
No, they don't. If one moves to a different state, you count towards that state.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Whatever the frequency, they count from birth to death, don't they?
No, they don't. If one moves to a different state, you count towards that state.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
So, people under the age of voting are not included in the total population figure. Is that it?
You certainly are clinging to your one thread, aren't ya?
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Just for fun. Any problem?
No, not really. I just don't see how it much benefits your original post, though. How about I just concede that one? It's inconsequential to the issue of fetal rights, after all.
 

freedomlover

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
63
Reaction score
14
Location
No man's land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
No, not really. I just don't see how it much benefits your original post, though. How about I just concede that one? It's inconsequential to the issue of fetal rights, after all.
Ok, thanks.

Let’s talk from moderate to moderate. Fetal rights are a contentious issue, to say the least. My point is that abortion ban is pivotal to such rights. Why? There are different answers to the question. One is the religious one. Should abortion be banned because religion says it must be banned? Should be freedom to believe be banned because religion once said it must be banned?

Another answer is utilitarianism: society is better off with every newborn. I could agree with you on that. However, prohibition of abortion is an authoritarian way to reach the desired outcome. And fetal rights are a hypocritical means to enforce the authoritarian solution. The fact that abortion is undesirable does not justify its outlawing; the same as alcoholism is an evil did not justify Prohibition. Why not aiming at the same target through inducement rather than compulsion? Freedom would win.
 
Last edited:

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Ok, thanks.

Let’s talk from moderate to moderate. Fetal rights are a contentious issue, to say the least. My point is that abortion ban is pivotal to such rights. Why? There are different answers to the question. One is the religious one. Should abortion be banned because religion says it must be banned? Should be freedom to believe be banned because religion once said it must be banned?

Another answer is utilitarianism: society is better off with every newborn. I could agree with you on that. However, prohibition of abortion is an authoritarian way to reach the desired outcome. And fetal rights are a hypocritical means to enforce the authoritarian solution. The fact that abortion is undesirable does not justify its outlawing; the same as alcoholism is an evil did not justify Prohibition. Why not aiming at the same target through inducement rather than compulsion? Freedom would win.
I don't disagree, and indeed it is my position to argue against abortion not abortion legality. The arguments I make can easily be construed as someone trying to have abortion banned, but the truth is, there is no way to argue against abortion itself without making many of the same arguments.

Most all arguments for abortion completely ignore the death of a human child in favor of individual rights. In my view, this is a classic case of rights coming into conflict with each other. The right to life and the right to privacy. Unfortunately, only one of those is fully recognized at this point. Though I'm only concerned with getting the right to life recognized, and not in outlawing abortion, I recognize that doing so will probably mean an end to legal abortions. This is not my intent, but is an outcome I can live with.

I'm also not in the least bit concerned with the religious aspect of it or what their reasoning is for supporting the pro-life movement. If it's religion that makes them value human life, than more power to them. The pro-life movement can't be disregarded solely based on being supported by religious people however. The religious beliefs are irrelevant. We're talking about human life, and if they're with me, I care not what religion they follow.
 

freedomlover

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
63
Reaction score
14
Location
No man's land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I don't disagree, and indeed it is my position to argue against abortion not abortion legality. The arguments I make can easily be construed as someone trying to have abortion banned, but the truth is, there is no way to argue against abortion itself without making many of the same arguments.

Most all arguments for abortion completely ignore the death of a human child in favor of individual rights. In my view, this is a classic case of rights coming into conflict with each other. The right to life and the right to privacy. Unfortunately, only one of those is fully recognized at this point. Though I'm only concerned with getting the right to life recognized, and not in outlawing abortion, I recognize that doing so will probably mean an end to legal abortions. This is not my intent, but is an outcome I can live with.

I'm also not in the least bit concerned with the religious aspect of it or what their reasoning is for supporting the pro-life movement. If it's religion that makes them value human life, than more power to them. The pro-life movement can't be disregarded solely based on being supported by religious people however. The religious beliefs are irrelevant. We're talking about human life, and if they're with me, I care not what religion they follow.
From what you say, I infer that you accept the banning of abortion as a lesser evil, in order to protect the rights of the unborn. However, not only is the ban a constrain imposed on freedom as an abstract value—which is how you seem to view the issue—but also an unbalanced arrangement in which virtue a fraction of society, that is, pregnant women are bound—however unwilling—to suffer a kind of serfdom, that is, to perform productive services without due reward. And that, it seems to me, is contrary to the very foundations of an open society.
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The census issue is a strawman. The purpose of the census is to gauge the appropriate number of representatives in Congress. The appropriate number of representatives is based on the number of voters each state has, since a voter is over the age of 18, counting unborn children is unnecessary.
That's how the federal government uses Census information.
The Census is also used to determine where appropriations need to be placed - and other things related to more local concerns. . . schools, roads, parks, libraries, public transportation - all these things come into play.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
From what you say, I infer that you accept the banning of abortion as a lesser evil, in order to protect the rights of the unborn.
Basically, yeah.

However, not only is the ban a constrain imposed on freedom as an abstract value—which is how you seem to view the issue—but also an unbalanced arrangement in which virtue a fraction of society, that is, pregnant women are bound—however unwilling—to suffer a kind of serfdom, that is, to perform productive services without due reward. And that, it seems to me, is contrary to the very foundations of an open society.
This part of the argument is pretty common. First, from a completely anarchist point of view, you are correct. However, societal standards put all sorts of limits on individual rights for the betterment of all of society. Second, the pregnant woman is not exactly an unwitting participant. I would only see pregnancy as an infringement on individual rights in the case where the pregnant person had no say in becoming pregnant. With freedom comes responsibility. A free society can not endure without a certain level of responsibility of all it's members. Without responsibility, freedom devolves into anarchy and lawlessness, so it's not much of a stretch to see another side of the infringement on personal liberty argument as an end to freedom.
 

prometeus

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
24,276
Reaction score
10,324
Location
Over the edge...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
p.s. Over half of US states have fetal homicide laws on the books, half of the remainder have prosecuted (and won) cases of double homicide involving an unborn child based on other existing laws. Commonplace? How blatant does a thing have to be before you see it?
Actually if you look closely at all the states, a majority of states do not consider it a crime when the fetus is pre-viable or not "quick" either by not having any fetal homicide laws or specifically excluding fetuses in the early stages as I mentioned.
 
Top Bottom