Ad hoc rights are the most questionable

[prometeus]

The census issue is a strawman. The purpose of the census is to gauge the appropriate number of representatives in Congress.

You are terribly misinformed about the census. As shown in other posts already the information of the census is used to allocate resources that go far beyond representatives. The best indication of that is the fact that ALL persons citizens or not, even illegals are counted.

 

[prometeus]

No, they don't. If one moves to a different state, you count towards that state.

Did you fill out the latest census form? If you did and understood what you were doing you wouldn't make such a silly statement.

 

[freedomlover]

Basically, yeah.



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.

That sounds as if sexual intercourse was a contract from which people got whatever they get therefrom in exchange for a lottery, the worst outcome being forced labor—in case of pregnancy. However, forced labor must not be the outcome of any legal behaviour, and in no way due responsibility may be alleged to justify that end. By the same token you could justify debt bondage. And the issue of restrictions imposed on individual rights on behalf of society has no bearing on this debate. Because such restrictions are fully justifiable whenever they are a burden for all the citizens, but never when they are a burden—for basically doing the same thing—for a specific gender and not for the other.

 

[mac]

Did you feel out the latest census form? If you did and understood what you were doing you wouldn't make such a silly statement.

The purpose of the census is what I stated. There are other uses, but the purpose, as defined in the constitution is clear. Regardless, it has no impact on the argument at hand. So, out of the several assumptions in the original post, all have been disproved save one, and it is irrelevant to the issue.

 

[prometeus]

How about I just concede that one? It's inconsequential to the issue of fetal rights, after all.

That is truly noble of you and to my knowledge a first. And you have lost nothing either, on the contrary I think you gained.
More to the point, it is very consequential to the issue of fetal rights. The first step in having rights is Not existing obviously but being recognized. No one can have rights if they are not recognized as legal entities. A further point demonstrating lack of recognition is the fact that fetuses are not recognized as dependents on tax returns.

 

[mac]

That sounds as if sexual intercourse was a contract from which people got whatever they get therefrom in exchange for a lottery, the worst outcome being forced labor—in case of pregnancy. However, forced labor must not be the outcome of any legal behaviour, and in no way due responsibility may be alleged to justify that end. By the same token you could justify debt bondage. And the issue of restrictions imposed on individual rights on behalf of society has no bearing on this debate. Because such restrictions are fully justifiable whenever they are a burden for all the citizens, but never when they are a burden—for basically doing the same thing—for a specific gender and not for the other.

This doesn't really make sense. The right to life is an impact to all of society, not just the pregnant woman. There is no contract, but the consequences of the act are clear. There need not be a contract in existence in many circumstances where the participants are held to an outcome. The issue of restrictions on individual rights very much does have an impact since it is the pro-choice stance that while restrictions indeed do exist on other rights, for some reason there are no restrictions on this one.

 

[mac]

That is truly noble of you and to my knowledge a first. And you have lost nothing either, on the contrary I think you gained.
More to the point, it is very consequential to the issue of fetal rights. The first step in having rights is Not existing obviously but being recognized. No one can have rights if they are not recognized as legal entities. A further point demonstrating lack of recognition is the fact that fetuses are not recognized as dependents on tax returns.

I have proven time and time again where the unborn child is recognized as a legal entity. The census has no bearing on that.

 

[prometeus]

I have proven time and time again where the unborn child is recognized as a legal entity. The census has no bearing on that.

Actually you have not, but did attempt. To say that the Constitution is irrelevant and your assertions are correct is a bit presumptuous, don't you think? Regardless, I'll take the Constitution over your opinion any time.

 

[mac]

Actually you have not, but did attempt. To say that the Constitution is irrelevant and your assertions are correct is a bit presumptuous, don't you think? Regardless, I'll take the Constitution over your opinion any time.

I never said the Constitution is irrelevant, and I have shown over and over again where the unborn child is considered a legal entity both on state and federal levels. Your refusal to admit what has been put right in front of you shows a complete disregard for reason.

 

[freedomlover]

This doesn't really make sense. The right to life is an impact to all of society, not just the pregnant woman.

And yet the consequences are a burden only to the pregnant woman. Easy.

There need not be a contract in existence in many circumstances where the participants are held to an outcome.

In such circumstances, the outcome may be desired or just an accident. If an accident and technology offers a remedy, a remedy is expedient.

The issue of restrictions on individual rights very much does have an impact since it is the pro-choice stance that while restrictions indeed do exist on other rights, for some reason there are no restrictions on this one.

I told you before: because it is an unbalanced arrangement, which throws the burden of the pursuit of the general interest just on one gender as an outcome for the production of which both are necessary. Do you really expect 21st century women fatefully to accept their natural role as mothers, which puts them in a subordinate footing as compared with men in professional careers and economic opportunities whatsoever, so rendering them second-class citizens? (Oooopppss... Sorry, I forgot this is anarchism.)

 

[mac]

And yet the consequences are a burden only to the pregnant woman. Easy.

Are the poor the only ones able to vote on issues that affect the poor? Are Minorities the only ones eligible to vote on issues that affect minorities? Are the Rich the only ones eligible to vote on issues affecting the rich?

In such circumstances, the outcome may be desired or just an accident. If an accident and technology offers a remedy, a remedy is expedient.

Is that true for negligent homicide? Why punish someone that didn't intentionally kill someone else?

I told you before: because it is an unbalanced arrangement, which throws the burden of the pursuit of the general interest just on one gender as an outcome for the production of which both are necessary. Do you really expect 21st century women fatefully to accept their natural role as mothers, which puts them in a subordinate footing as compared with men in professional careers and economic opportunities whatsoever, so rendering them second-class citizens? (Oooopppss... Sorry, I forgot this is anarchism.)

It's not unbalanced. It takes two to make a baby, either of which is fully capable of avoiding pregnancy. Women have every right to take full control over their reproductive systems in any number of ways that doesn't require killing an unborn child.

Your same argument should be just as easily applied to men. Why would one sex be subject to the whim of the other. If a guy hooks up for a one night stand, the woman get's pregnant and she decides to keep it, the guy is required to support that child for life. He has no say in that "burden" does he? especially if the concept of knowing what you were getting into doesn't apply. Or is it that it doesn't apply equally?

 

[freedomlover]

Are the poor the only ones able to vote on issues that affect the poor? Are Minorities the only ones eligible to vote on issues that affect minorities? Are the Rich the only ones eligible to vote on issues affecting the rich?

Are the debtors the only ones able to vote on debt bondage, that is, permanent or temporal slavery whenever they do not repay? Are thieves and drunkards the only ones able to vote on corporal punishments, such as cutting a thief’s hand and flogging convicted drunkards? Those issues are not apt to be decided by voting, because we consider them to be a regression to uncivilized stages of society. Well, undesired pregnancy is a mixture of forced labor and corporal punishment.

Is that true for negligent homicide? Why punish someone that didn't intentionally kill someone else?

The reason why the law punishes someone that unintentionally killed someone else is, of course, retribution. More often than not, the killed person leaves relatives and friends, who in absence of the law would probably take revenge. Punishment of the negligent homicide is a moderating stance adopted by the law both to grant retribution for the wrongdoing and to protect the wrongdoer from the wrath of those directly concerned.

Notice, however, that such directly concerned do not exist in case of death of the unborn, or rather the most concerned would be the mother. If she declines to ask for retribution, as she impliedly does in abortion, who is entitled to ask for it?

It's not unbalanced. It takes two to make a baby, either of which is fully capable of avoiding pregnancy. Women have every right to take full control over their reproductive systems in any number of ways that doesn't require killing an unborn child.

Your same argument should be just as easily applied to men. Why would one sex be subject to the whim of the other. If a guy hooks up for a one night stand, the woman get's pregnant and she decides to keep it, the guy is required to support that child for life. He has no say in that "burden" does he? especially if the concept of knowing what you were getting into doesn't apply. Or is it that it doesn't apply equally?

Situations are not comparable. For a man that is required to support his child for life is so required to protect a person with full legal rights—the baby—while the woman that is required to endure pregnancy to completion is so required on behalf, not of a person but of a fetus. You are putting the baby and the fetus on the same legal footing, which they are obviously not.

Besides, the man is required to give only his money while the woman is required to give her pain and efforts and even her body. It is the same difference as between paying taxes and having one’s properties confiscated without compensation.

 

[mac]

Are the debtors the only ones able to vote on debt bondage, that is, permanent or temporal slavery whenever they do not repay? Are thieves and drunkards the only ones able to vote on corporal punishments, such as cutting a thief’s hand and flogging convicted drunkards? Those issues are not apt to be decided by voting, because we consider them to be a regression to uncivilized stages of society. Well, undesired pregnancy is a mixture of forced labor and corporal punishment.

Ending corporal punishment in the us was provided by vote. Indeed through a series of acts of congress. Needless to say, all matters that affect society are society's right to decide the way forward.

The reason why the law punishes someone that unintentionally killed someone else is, of course, retribution. More often than not, the killed person leaves relatives and friends, who in absence of the law would probably take revenge. Punishment of the negligent homicide is a moderating stance adopted by the law both to grant retribution for the wrongdoing and to protect the wrongdoer from the wrath of those directly concerned.

In the case of punishing the negligent, it is usually a desire to prevent further occurrence rather than retribution.Though to some, those connected to the victim, retribution is certainly a factor. Not to law, though.

Notice, however, that such directly concerned do not exist in case of death of the unborn, or rather the most concerned would be the mother. If she declines to ask for retribution, as she impliedly does in abortion, who is entitled to ask for it?

There have been many cases where "retribution" was sought on behalf of the unborn child for many different reasons. If you would like I can cite legal cases across the country granting everything from inheritance to social security benefits to the unborn.

Situations are not comparable. For a man that is required to support his child for life is so required to protect a person with full legal rights—the baby—while the woman that is required to endure pregnancy to completion is so required on behalf, not of a person but of a fetus. You are putting the baby and the fetus on the same legal footing, which they are obviously not.

The situations are comparable though the circumstances differ. Surely the state can not overcome human biology and in many cases the unborn child has all the "footing" of a born child. Again, I can cite many cases that support this if you would like.

Besides, the man is required to give only his money while the woman is required to give her pain and efforts and even her body. It is the same difference as between paying taxes and having one’s properties confiscated without compensation.

The law can only extract what is possible. Would a law requiring someone to turn purple in punishment make any sense?

 

[freedomlover]

Ending corporal punishment in the us was provided by vote. Indeed through a series of acts of congress. Needless to say, all matters that affect society are society's right to decide the way forward.



In the case of punishing the negligent, it is usually a desire to prevent further occurrence rather than retribution.Though to some, those connected to the victim, retribution is certainly a factor. Not to law, though.



There have been many cases where "retribution" was sought on behalf of the unborn child for many different reasons. If you would like I can cite legal cases across the country granting everything from inheritance to social security benefits to the unborn.



The situations are comparable though the circumstances differ. Surely the state can not overcome human biology and in many cases the unborn child has all the "footing" of a born child. Again, I can cite many cases that support this if you would like.



The law can only extract what is possible. Would a law requiring someone to turn purple in punishment make any sense?

As I see the issue, we are back on the beginning. Not an inch of progress in the conversation, interesting though the exchange may have been. It is in the interest of moderation not to stick unnecessarily to useless contest. Therefore, we could put an end to this, if you don’t mind.

 

[mac]

As I see the issue, we are back on the beginning. Not an inch of progress in the conversation, interesting though the exchange may have been. It is in the interest of moderation not to stick unnecessarily to useless contest. Therefore, we could put an end to this, if you don’t mind.

I accept your surrender.

 

[freedomlover]

I accept your surrender.

Surrender? I thought you were a real moderate.

The issue is whether a child and a fetus are on an equal legal footing. You show a series scattered decisions to prove they are. Yet, in a judge-made law system, like the common law, judges are given room to decide according to their conscience. Therefore, we will always have decisions leaning toward one position and sentences leaning toward the opposite. What you ought to show, if you want to have a clear case, is that a majority of decisions lean toward your position, which you haven’t yet shown up.

Furthermore, that a few—or many—decisions supports the view that a fetus has rights in not decisive to the point in case. Animals also have rights, and that amounts to nothing when it comes to confront their rights with the constitutional rights of people. I still wait that you show a sentence of the US Supreme Court vesting constitutional rights on the fetus, which of course you can’t for such a sentence would render state abortion laws unconstitutional automatically.

Therefore, what we have in your case is a fraction of society—that fraction that likes to decide what other people have to do with their lives—attempting to deprive another fraction—reluctant women to carry on pregnancy to completion—of their constitutional rights, and to deprive such women of their rights without a fair trial, on behalf of something that is not vested with such rights. A nice subversion of the American system of liberties.

 

[mac]

Surrender? I thought you were a real moderate.

It was a joke.

The issue is whether a child and a fetus are on an equal legal footing. You show a series scattered decisions to prove they are. Yet, in a judge-made law system, like the common law, judges are given room to decide according to their conscience. Therefore, we will always have decisions leaning toward one position and sentences leaning toward the opposite. What you ought to show, if you want to have a clear case, is that a majority of decisions lean toward your position, which you haven’t yet shown up.

Furthermore, that a few—or many—decisions supports the view that a fetus has rights in not decisive to the point in case. Animals also have rights, and that amounts to nothing when it comes to confront their rights with the constitutional rights of people. I still wait that you show a sentence of the US Supreme Court vesting constitutional rights on the fetus, which of course you can’t for such a sentence would render state abortion laws unconstitutional automatically.

What I have shown is the decisions that are on the books. I can't show what doesn't exist. It's your assumption that cases involving fetal rights exist that ruled against the fetal right, based solely on the fetus' rights, rather than some other circumstance of the case. In years of reading these court decisions I have found only two that ruled against the fetus solely based on the lack of rights of the fetus. So, I have shown (in other threads) that there is a greater lean towards fetal rights than against in the majority of court decisions.

Therefore, what we have in your case is a fraction of society—that fraction that likes to decide what other people have to do with their lives—attempting to deprive another fraction—reluctant women to carry on pregnancy to completion—of their constitutional rights, and to deprive such women of their rights without a fair trial, on behalf of something that is not vested with such rights. A nice subversion of the American system of liberties.

We don't have a fraction of society, we have a greatly increasing large percentage of society that opposes abortion. Painting the issue as a fraction of society attempting to control another fraction of society rather than a large percentage of the population that opposes abortion is an emotional appeal, and far from accurate. Most of us understand the conflict between fetal rights and women's rights, however I, like many, put the greater importance on the rights of the unborn child.

 

[mac]

By the way, free, I work on the same compound as the US census bureau and had a conversation with a geographer there over lunch yesterday. He told me that the main reason the the unborn child is not counted in the census is a throwback to when the odds of a successful live birth was less than it is today. It simply boiled down to making the job easier for the census bureau. Haven't seen it in writing, but that's what he said.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

To me it makes no sense to count unborn/infants - because they don't tax, demand or otherwise occupy and make use of *anything* - their parents do, however, and thus the parents are counted.

The problem with this, however, is that the child - between the census years - will attend school, possibly end up at the hospital at least once, and ultimately become an occupier of said "anythings"

 

[mac]

To me it makes no sense to count unborn/infants - because they don't tax, demand or otherwise occupy and make use of *anything* - their parents do, however, and thus the parents are counted.

The problem with this, however, is that the child - between the census years - will attend school, possibly end up at the hospital at least once, and ultimately become an occupier of said "anythings"

I asked about that too, he said that's covered in the "slop" they allow in their results for sampling inaccuracies.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I asked about that too, he said that's covered in the "slop" they allow in their results for sampling inaccuracies.

Perhaps they need to revisit the 'census' things - I think that every 5 years is more ideal . . . with a more modern process and approach.

*but* just mentioning that offends the adherants of the Constitution - even though it would be to make the system more efficient and sensible.

 

[freedomlover]

By the way, free, I work on the same compound as the US census bureau and had a conversation with a geographer there over lunch yesterday. He told me that the main reason the the unborn child is not counted in the census is a throwback to when the odds of a successful live birth was less than it is today. It simply boiled down to making the job easier for the census bureau. Haven't seen it in writing, but that's what he said.

Sorry, mac, that I misunderstood the joke. And thanks for the info.

However, I believe there is something else. A census is a count of people with names and dates of birth, education, jobs, etc. The agents that make the field work for the census must have at least a possibility to check whether the information is good, that is, that those people are there. Now, suppose that unborn were counted as “population.” Agents would lack ways and means to check, unless pregnancy was self-evident—and still visible pregnancy may be faked. It would be most embarrassing for them to verify facts.

So, yes, it is to make the job easier for the census bureau. Yet, isn’t it only too reasonable?

 

[mac]

Sorry, mac, that I misunderstood the joke. And thanks for the info.

However, I believe there is something else. A census is a count of people with names and dates of birth, education, jobs, etc. The agents that make the field work for the census must have at least a possibility to check whether the information is good, that is, that those people are there. Now, suppose that unborn were counted as “population.” Agents would lack ways and means to check, unless pregnancy was self-evident—and still visible pregnancy may be faked. It would be most embarrassing for them to verify facts.

So, yes, it is to make the job easier for the census bureau. Yet, isn’t it only too reasonable?

Yea, it's reasonable, however immaterial to the issue of fetal rights.

 

[freedomlover]

Yea, it's reasonable, however immaterial to the issue of fetal rights.

No, it’s not immaterial. As unborn are too vaporous population to take account of in censuses, so they are too uncertain personae to be the subjects of personal rights. For one thing is that some courts, even many of them, find occasion to assign singular rights to them, and a very different one that courts in general acknowledge them full personal rights.

Note, for instance, that full personal rights would entail police research of the circumstances in which every natural abortion occurs. Was the pregnant woman negligent? Perhaps, she smoked too much, drank too much, lent herself to excess stress, and so on. If such was the case, she must be charged with negligent homicide. Perhaps, she took due care, but someone else it was who had a dispute with her that provoked the accident. That one would be accused of negligent homicide. Criminal prosecution would become unmanageable. And so forth possibly with other branches of the law.

 

[MaggieD]

No, it’s not immaterial. As unborn are too vaporous population to take account of in censuses, so they are too uncertain personae to be the subjects of personal rights. For one thing is that some courts, even many of them, find occasion to assign singular rights to them, and a very different one that courts in general acknowledge them full personal rights.

Note, for instance, that full personal rights would entail police research of the circumstances in which every natural abortion occurs. Was the pregnant woman negligent? Perhaps, she smoked too much, drank too much, lent herself to excess stress, and so on. If such was the case, she must be charged with negligent homicide. Perhaps, she took due care, but someone else it was who had a dispute with her that provoked the accident. That one would be accused of negligent homicide. Criminal prosecution would become unmanageable. And so forth possibly with other branches of the law.

That's a first for me -- someone arguing against personhood based on the fact that unborn children aren't taken into account in our nation's census. *Sigh* (How 'bout this? The cenus is a head count, right? Well, until the child is born, there's no visible head to count. Unless you peek. And that would just be, well, wrong. On so many levels.