The caterpillar is not the same as a fetus. A fetus is required to use the organs and sustenance another body provides. One thing that has always amused me about anti-abortion advocates, or pro birthers, I should say, is that they are so focused on the short term goal they miss what the outcome of their policies would be.
Tell me, where does it end? At abortion? Since abortion exists to protect mothers from having their bodies used by a fetus (note, not a person, as personhood is required for rights to function), what would stop, for example, organ donors from using the precedent to force all deceased people to have to donate their organs on death?
A single Monarch caterpillar and resulting butterfly are the same species, and indeed the same individual. A caterpillar is not a collection of Danaus plexippus cells, but an individual of the Danaus plexippus species.
We can certainly consider the caterpillar to be less worthy of life, by virtue of having less capabilities, being a "burden", and having not reached the butterfly stage. But we can not deny that it is an individual of Danaus plexippus.
I think they are short sighted as well. I would like to see abortion rates decreased myself. Prevention is better.
So let us say they get their goal of reversing R v W. Let us say that every state made abortion illegal (mind you neither of these things will happen)/ What will happen? No back alley abortions required. The pregnant woman will go to the local drug pusher and they will have the abortion pills. I argue that since there are tens of thousand more drug pushers than abortion clinics, that it is possible that abortions will be MORE available than ever - just not as safe .I also would argue that it is possible that it is more than probable that disgruntled boyfriends will start dosing their pregnant girlfriend.
If they played the pragmatic long game, they would realize how to prevent abortions is by prevention of unwanted pregnancy. That means improving and making more financially accessible long term forms of contraception and developing better options for men. If they played the pragmatic long game they would realize WHY women have abortions. They are idiots to keep talking about trivial inconveniences. It minimizes the real issues a woman has during pregnancy. Most women who choose abortion are poor or working poor with substandard access to health care. Many are housing and job insecure. While the party that 'champions" reversal of R V W, they fail to champion for social safety nets that would make a woman feel more comfortable making the decision to maintain her pregnancy.
Many flippantly talk about "just adopting the baby out" as if they pregnancy in and of itself is not a risk to health and potentially employment prospects which could lead to loss of a safe place to live.
If they took a more "pro-lifespan" stance and less of a "pro-fetus" stance...they might have more luck drastically decreasing abortion rates.
The caterpillar is not the same as a fetus. A fetus is required to use the organs and sustenance another body provides. One thing that has always amused me about anti-abortion advocates, or pro birthers, I should say, is that they are so focused on the short term goal they miss what the outcome of their policies would be.
Tell me, where does it end? At abortion? Since abortion exists to protect mothers from having their bodies used by a fetus (note, not a person, as personhood is required for rights to function), what would stop, for example, organ donors from using the precedent to force all deceased people to have to donate their organs on death?
"...that another body provides" is along the less capabilities / burden argument. A toddler is also less capable and a burden to the parents, or more often in today's society, parent in the singular. Forcing donation of one's organ's after death, if an extension of a pro-life theme, is a fairly small price to pay. The alternative "pro choice" theme requires one sacrifice their life at a very early stage.
"...that another body provides" is along the less capabilities / burden argument. A toddler is also less capable and a burden to the parents, or more often in today's society, parent in the singular. Forcing donation of one's organ's after death, if an extension of a pro-life theme, is a fairly small price to pay. The alternative "pro choice" theme requires one sacrifice their life at a very early stage.
Forcing one to donate their organs is an authoritarian req that would invert religious rights; since some religions do not believe you go to the afterlife they promise if you are missing body parts.
But no one's rights are violated to care for the toddler. Anyone can care for the toddler, but you cannot act on the unborn without the consent of the mother (without due process).
The unborn are demonstrably, not 'equal' to born people, and that is the standard under our Constitution.
The unborn is physiologically intertwined with the woman and cannot exercise a single right independently. That dependency truly shows the unborn is not equal.
I'd submit that the mother's rights are violated to care for the toddler. Without the toddler, the mother is free to be a deadbeat. If the mother fails to care for the toddler, she can be jailed for 'child neglect'. The burden of care is placed on her.
"Not equal" does not equate to "kill on demand". The Constitution would hold that a Somali citizen has less rights than an American citizen: the two are "not equal", and one is the lesser. This does not justify killing of the Somali.
Your nomenclature is incorrect. I am so tired of the right wing pushing the overton window further and further right with their hysteria.
Well, the liberal Democrats are for abortion at any state of the pregnancy. That's not a right wing anything. That's squarely on the liberal left Democrats. 60 million babies have been butchered since Roe v Wade. Sick, sick, sick...:2sick1:
I went through some very intensive chemo 6 years ago, F**** cancer
I'd submit that the mother's rights are violated to care for the toddler. Without the toddler, the mother is free to be a deadbeat. If the mother fails to care for the toddler, she can be jailed for 'child neglect'. The burden of care is placed on her.
"Not equal" does not equate to "kill on demand". The Constitution would hold that a Somali citizen has less rights than an American citizen: the two are "not equal", and one is the lesser. This does not justify killing of the Somali.
The Somali has rights because it's a defined person. A fetus is not. Personhood is from whence rights are originated.
She can put it up for adoption. And every state has "Safe Harbor" laws that enable mothers or fathers to drop kids off at designated places, no questions asked. Problem solved.
Nobody claimed the bold. But what justification would there be to protect the unborn at the expense of, in violation of, a woman's Constitutional rights? To imagine some rights for the unborn to protect would mean that women's rights would be superseded...making women 2nd class citizens again. And SCOTUS has already ruled on that.
I am amazed at how many "cures" are on the web.
If you dig into them you find that they are not cures but money generating hoaxes.
They thrive on taking advantage of people likely to die and therefore not likely to sue.
Friends sent me lots of these references with good intentions.
The sites will claim to be linked to John Hopkins or a certain cancer center which when researched turns out to be totally false.
These people should be tasered were it would hurt the most, once for every patient they deceived.
ZAP, ZAP, ZAP, stop because they passed out, they wake, ZAP, ZAP, ZAP
"Protection of unborn children"
This thread was inspired by exchanges with
minnie616, years2late, Lursa and Scrabaholic
--DP's Four Horsewomen of Abortion--
whose confusion concerning the nature and nomenclature of the human being in the womb
opened my eyes
--a newcomer to abortion debate--
opened my eyes
to the confusion at law
and to the cultural confusion
underlying the confusion of our Querulous Quartet.
The Law has confused them
and through them or the likes of them confused us or the likes of us.
This is how federal law defines that critter in mommy's belly:
18 U.S. Code 01841. Protection of unborn children
(d) As used in this section, the term "unborn child" means a "child in utero," and the term "child in utero" or "child who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
18 U.S. Code SS 1841 - Protection of unborn children | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Are we all paying attention?
"a member of the species homo sapiens"
or as the federal law reads in another place:
(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall...be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
I say, are we paying attention?
"a human being"
Now that we are aware of the legal and cultural confusion, please see Angel's clear and concise Pro-Life/Pro-Choice moral argument at
Abortion 101
Abortion 201
AP Abortion: Moral Responsibility
Think
There are certain situations where one life should be legally forfeit in favor of another. For example, the law says that a black man walking down the street has the same value as me - I can not take his life. However, take that same man and have him break into my house when my kids are home - I have a gun, and I take his life. It's the same man, different situation. His life is worth less - so much so that I can take his life without penalty.
In order for that to happen with abortion, it has to be life vs. life. If either the mother or the fetus has to die, then it would be the fetus. But to say that the mother can take the fetus's life on a whim? I don't buy into that concept, just like I can't buy into taking the black man's life on a whim.
There are certain situations where one life should be legally forfeit in favor of another. For example, the law says that a black man walking down the street has the same value as me - I can not take his life. However, take that same man and have him break into my house when my kids are home - I have a gun, and I take his life. It's the same man, different situation. His life is worth less - so much so that I can take his life without penalty.
In order for that to happen with abortion, it has to be life vs. life. If either the mother or the fetus has to die, then it would be the fetus. But to say that the mother can take the fetus's life on a whim? I don't buy into that concept, just like I can't buy into taking the black man's life on a whim.
The fetus is harming the woman, just like the man that broke into your house (hypothetically) is harming you. I don't know why you said black man, it could just as easily be a white man.
If so, can you please explain why you value the unborn more than women? Because they cannot be treated equally under the law, its not possible. (If it is, please explain. I would be very interested in that.)
Well, the liberal Democrats are for abortion at any state of the pregnancy. That's not a right wing anything. That's squarely on the liberal left Democrats. 60 million babies have been butchered since Roe v Wade. Sick, sick, sick...:2sick1:
I don't value the unborn more than a woman: the unborn is indeed lesser. To me, another person's child is of less importance than my child. A random Russian woman walking around in Moscow right now is less important than my wife. However, these entities, less though they be, do not deserve death unless they challenge the life of the more important.
Well, the liberal Democrats are for abortion at any state of the pregnancy. That's not a right wing anything. That's squarely on the liberal left Democrats. 60 million babies have been butchered since Roe v Wade. Sick, sick, sick...:2sick1:
Why exactly is it that you want 6,000,000 children to grow in situations where they are not wanted. After you explain that how about telling us why your decisions about sex, reproduction, birth and child care should supersede that of the women that must bear the child and then care for it for 18 years. Isn't it just a bit arrogant to assume that you get to decide for women what is best for them and their fetus? Who gave you the right to make decisions for women?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?