Full rights for a embryo

[dex4974]

My response is based on long experience of being lectured on female reproductive issues by males, (leaving off old and white since you say you are a non-white and very young)
So, you are probably a pretty nice guy and probably good looking and in great shape, but you suffer from a common male belief that being male confers upon you greater wisdom than all womenkind when in fact you really don't know anything about women, pregnancy, abortion, giving birth, lactation or working while pregnant or nursing. What you don't realize is those of us who do know something about those subjects have thought very seriously about them for most of our adult lives and being told that techno-wombs are going to solve the real social problem of 800,000 unwanted pregnancies tends to bring out sarcasm, snakiness and irritation. I'm not gaslighting. I'm telling you some great truths, pay attention, whipper-snapper!

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I don't respect the perspective and intelligence of women. That was a misunderstanding. I am not ignorant either though.

 

[iguanaman]

I can want to ensure as much human life as possible. I don't know. I guess I'm just programmed that way. Must be some evolution thing.

Not really evolution has created many obstacles for a zygote for a reason. An infant that is not wanted is unlikely to thrive. That is evolution.

 

[dex4974]

Not really evolution has created many obstacles for a zygote for a reason. An infant that is not wanted is unlikely to thrive. That is evolution.

They're not unwanted, not by me anyway. I can't care for them all but I'll definitely advocate for society to do so.

 

[iguanaman]

They're not unwanted, not by me anyway. I can't care for them all but I'll definitely advocate for society to do so.

So 100,000 unwanted orphans are not enough? You want more?

 

[dex4974]

So 100,000 unwanted orphans are not enough? You want more?

You don't understand why it's not negotiable to me.

 

[Lursa]

I did more than shrug. I just wasn't arrogant enough to define the future in exact detail.

"Exact detail?"

Your answers amounted to 'it'll just happen.' You didnt even indicate a modicum of forethought about the consequences of the 'solution' you proposed.

 

[dex4974]

"Exact detail?"

Your answers amounted to 'it'll just happen.' You didnt even indicate a modicum of forethought about the consequences of the 'solution' you proposed.

If what I provided was unsatisfactory to you then so be it.

Chill.

 

[Lursa]

They're not unwanted, not by me anyway. I can't care for them all but I'll definitely advocate for society to do so.

This is an incredibly selfish post. Who are you to work towards forcing your personal need on women who would suffer? On society, that would have to pay $$ or other consequences?

Wow.

 

[wolfsgirl]

We barely even know how our own brains and general biology work. In a few hundred years there's really no telling how insane our capabilities will be.

So you have zero interest in debating what is actually happening and instead want to debate wishes and fantasies.

Okay.

 

[Lursa]

If what I provided was unsatisfactory to you then so be it.

Chill.

I'm past caring, I just wanted to point out the inaccuracy in your claim.

 

[ttwtt78640]

But it didnt make any decision to formalize it. It left it up to the states after 24 weeks.

The RvW ‘interpretation’ was a prime example of judicial activism - there is absolutely no mention of 24 weeks, trimesters or viability in the constitution.

 

[dex4974]

So you have zero interest in debating what is actually happening and instead want to debate wishes and fantasies.

Okay.

I am pro-choice in 2020. We have no disagreement on the present.

 

[dex4974]

This is an incredibly selfish post. Who are you to work towards forcing your personal need on women who would suffer? On society, that would have to pay $$ or other consequences?

Wow.

I'm fine with you feeling that way.

 

[Lursa]

The RvW ‘interpretation’ was a prime example of judicial activism - there is absolutely no mention of 24 weeks, trimesters or viability in the constitution.

I'm happy to agree with that...there's no reason they should have decided anything but full autonomy for a woman's decision. There is zero protection for the unborn in the Const.

However the 9th protects a right to have an abortion in the same manner that it protects the right to have consensual sex or the right to have kids.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm happy to agree with that...there's no reason they should have decided anything but full autonomy for a woman's decision. There is zero protection for the unborn in the Const.

However the 9th protects a right to have an abortion in the same manner that it protects the right to have consensual sex or the right to have kids.

It is also why there is objection to appointing SCOTUS justices who are orginalists or textualists. Why do you suppose that there is no counting of the “pre-born” (after 24 weeks) in the census? A pregnant woman can also decide to do all manner of things which are harmful to the “pre-born” after 24 weeks (including aborting that non-person) without violating any federal civil rights laws. A person’s right to have (or not have) kids in no way should be transformed into the state’s right to force others to financially support them.

 

[Lursa]

It is also why there is objection to appointing SCOTUS justices who are orginalists or textualists. Why do you suppose that there is no counting of the “pre-born” (after 24 weeks) in the census? A pregnant woman can also decide to do all manner of things which are harmful to the “pre-born” after 24 weeks (including aborting that non-person) without violating any federal civil rights laws. A person’s right to have (or not have) kids in no way should be transformed into the state’s right to force others to financially support them.

The pre-born have no rights and 'dont exist' in any official way...and since there is a 2/3 chance they will miscarry before birth (and that doesnt even count if they are aborted)...it makes no sense to count people that dont exist. The unborn are not people...legally. Why should they be counted? And yes, women can live their lives as they see fit while pregnant...since the unborn legally are not recognized as having rights in the Const...why shouldnt women be able to do so? How can protecting something with no rights override and violate a woman's rights? How is that justified?

Regarding that financial support, you'd have to look deeper into what justifies the state from demanding that financial support for all sorts of public assistance. And then differentiate 'children's' needs for that assistance if you object to that.

I didnt mean to connect those 3 'rights' recognized under the 9th, but they just happen to be 3 of the most obvious. A person's right to have kids does not get transformed in any way as far as I know, into a right to have an abortion. They are completely separate.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The pre-born have no rights and 'dont exist' in any official way...and since there is a 2/3 chance they will miscarry before birth (and that doesnt even count if they are aborted)...it makes no sense to count people that dont exist. The unborn are not people...legally. Why should they be counted? And yes, women can live their lives as they see fit while pregnant...since the unborn legally are not recognized as having rights in the Const...why shouldnt women be able to do so? How can protecting something with no rights override and violate a woman's rights? How is that justified?

Regarding that financial support, you'd have to look deeper into what justifies the state from demanding that financial support for all sorts of public assistance. And then differentiate 'children's' needs for that assistance if you object to that.

I didnt mean to connect those 3 'rights' recognized under the 9th, but they just happen to be 3 of the most obvious. A person's right to have kids does not get transformed in any way as far as I know, into a right to have an abortion. They are completely separate.

You now seem to be disagreeing with the RvW ‘interpretation’ in which the SCOTUS assigned the stage of ZEF development significant legal importance out of thin air. That nonsense is the (legitimate legal?) basis for the “pro-life“ movement - which basically seeks to move the point at which ZEF development “counts” closer to conception.

I happen to agree with the idea (actually stated in the constitution) that a person does not exist prior to live birth.

My objection is to forced income redistribution via the income tax code based on how or upon who someone later elects to spend that income from all sources.

 

[Lursa]

You now seem to be disagreeing with the RvW ‘interpretation’ in which the SCOTUS assigned the stage of ZEF development significant legal importance out of thin air. That nonsense is the (legitimate legal?) basis for the “pro-life“ movement - which basically seeks to move the point at which ZEF development “counts” closer to conception.

I happen to agree with the idea (actually stated in the constitution) that a person does not exist prior to live birth.

My objection is to forced income redistribution via the income tax code based on how or upon who someone later elects to spend that income from all sources.

I already said I didnt see the need for that. They did however, give 'reasons' and in the final decision, they only recognized possible legal significance to viability which is ~24 weeks.

IMO, since the unborn have zero legal status, the entire decision should be based on protecting women's rights. The one thing that comes up repeatedly in key precedent cases and in RvW is 'the state's interest in the unborn.' And I cant find what that means. What IS their interest? It's not stated anywhere I can find. Is it 'more bodies to eventually pay taxes?' I posted the question in the US Const. sub-forum but havent gotten any 'informed' answers yet. Do you know?

And I'm sorry but you genericized your final objection so much that I cant decipher it. Please explain if you'd like a response to that.

 

[trblmkr]

You are not keeping up with the conversation. We are talking about a scenario where the baby can be relocated and kept alive in an artificial womb without the mother.

Is this baby not drug addicted, or suffering from any disease? And what if grandma can be relocated and kept alive? Should we do that too? Just a few more months. Do you wish to be the person who draws the line? You live, you die? How committed are you?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Another person that underestimates technological potential.

Do let us know when it happens, k?

 

[Scrabaholic]

If a woman has an option to separate from the baby without killing it that should be the only option. The mother's autonomy and rights are respected and the unborn child is saved. Opting to kill the child when an alternative exists actually is evil.

Autonomy would say she gets to decide which procedure her body is put through, if any at all.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Why don't you name a time and place where getting rid of the inconvenient has been acceptable?

Pregnancy is more than just an "inconvenience". smh

 

[Lursa]

Pregnancy is more than just an "inconvenience". smh

I suppose the 'inconvenience' isnt felt when her health prevents her from working or caring for her family? When it leads to her losing her job?

I guess it is just an 'inconvenience' when you cant feed your family or maintain a place to live in a safe neighborhood. I guess it's just an inconvenience when your kidneys are destroyed and you have to go on dialysis until you get one donated? I mean...her life isnt at risk, so then the abortion would just have been to prevent an 'inconvenience.'

And then of course there is the 'inconvenience' caused for all those that she had obligations and commitments to that she may not be able to uphold while pregnant and trying to work. I'm sure that her inability to do so is just an 'inconvenience' to her employer, her church, her community, society.

That's what we teach our kids, right? That it's fine to just risk your obligations and commitments and responsibilities to others...that stuff is just one big 'inconvenience' in life.

 

[skeptic llc]

So 100,000 unwanted orphans are not enough? You want more?

Better to just kill orphans (and future orphans)? Wow.

 

[weaver2]

You are not keeping up with the conversation. We are talking about a scenario where the baby can be relocated and kept alive in an artificial womb without the mother.

The process of removal is called abortion.