Abortion and Dred Scott

[Coyote]

I guess the question is how does the right to life only apply after you are born when a fetus is alive in the womb and birth is an arbitrary date: many preemies are born MONTHS before their expected date yet once born, magically transition from mere fetus to living person just because they were born early.

Birth has long been defined as the beginning of independent life, of rights, etc. Conception is just as arbritrary.

The point of viability is changing but at this point 21 weeks is the earliest surviving preemie. Prior to 24 weeks many that survive end up with severe life long conditions related to being premature. So, if 21 weeks is the earliest, then a cut off of 16 weeks shouldn't be unreasonable.

Birth is the one consistent factor here, including born early.

Prior to that why should it have greater rights to the mother's body?

How does giving birth or having an abortion affect the "integrity" of one's body since the baby is wholly separate from and self-contained from the woman's body?

Yes, it does, because the baby is not wholly seperate or it could be removed and continue to live. Or, it would not die when the woman died.

If true then we are all slaves to the government anyway, made so by the Covid vaccines.

That is just ridiculous.

 

[Coyote]

Ironically republicans don't believe the fetus (and later child) has a right to your TAXES if it needs to live.

It's pure hypocrisy.

I know.

Here is a logical parallel - I wonder what convoluted logic they'll come up with to negate it?

If an unborn child has a right to your body to survive, then so should a born child.

If your child is dying of kidney failure, and you, the parent are a perfect match, does the child then have a right to your kidney in order to survive (after all, we can do fine with one kidney)?

Does the state then have a right to FORCE you to donate your kidney to your child?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Dred Scott said that adult blacks weren't a "person".
So how could a fetus be a "person"

The Dredd Scott ruling was wrong. Black people •ARE• people, are human beings. It was always wrong to deny them that status, and it was always wrong to deny them basic human rights on the basis of denying their humanity.

The same is exactly true, also, of the unborn.

We will never, as a society, advance beyond where we were at Dredd Scott, until we repent of and repudiate this great evil against the unborn as we did of the same evil against blacks. It does us little good to repent of one form of a particular evil, as long as we continue to practice that same evil in an only slightly-different form.

 

[jwoodie]

Slavery involved only one person’s fundamental rights, that of the slave.

Abortion involves two sets of rights and the question of whether rights, always granted at birth, apply prior to birth.

Like slavery, does a pregnant woman lose rights to the integrity of her own body? Like slavery?

1. Slavery involved only the slave owner's property rights. The slave had no rights.

2. There is no unrestricted right to abort a fetus.

3. What does "integrity" have to do with abortion or slavery?

 

[jwoodie]

Here is a logical parallel - I wonder what convoluted logic they'll come up with to negate it?

If an unborn child has a right to your body to survive, then so should a born child.

If your child is dying of kidney failure, and you, the parent are a perfect match, does the child then have a right to your kidney in order to survive (after all, we can do fine with one kidney)?

Does the state then have a right to FORCE you to donate your kidney to your child?

Apparently, logical argument is above your pay grade.

 

[meaner gene]

I know.

Here is a logical parallel - I wonder what convoluted logic they'll come up with to negate it?

If an unborn child has a right to your body to survive, then so should a born child.

If your child is dying of kidney failure, and you, the parent are a perfect match, does the child then have a right to your kidney in order to survive (after all, we can do fine with one kidney)?

Does the state then have a right to FORCE you to donate your kidney to your child?

Organ donation is an area ripe for legal guidelines.
When there is a dispute over a childs welfare, child protective services can appoint a lawyer to represent the interests of a minor child. As such, it would be a case where one side is petitioning the court to compel organ donation by the parent, and the other arguing against forced organ donation.
It would be clear, like under roe v wade that the child has no right, if it would suffer the life or health of the mother.
But the idea of forcing donation of a kidney or section of a liver, or other organs the parent could easily live without is a serious legal question we haven't come close to answering.

 

[task0778]

Like slavery, does a pregnant woman lose rights to the integrity of her own body? Like slavery?

What about the integrity of the unborn baby and his/her right to the integrity of his/her body, indeed the very right to life itself?

A woman has unprotected sex, gets pregnant and does nothing about it, and then decides she doesn't want the baby so she makes the decision to end it's life prematurely. A human being IS DEAD, to me that is perilously close to negligent homicide. It ain't a pimple, right? A human life is terminated for no other reason than inconvenience and that stinks. So she has to carry the baby to term and give birth, well boo fucking hoo. She made certain choices during the entire process, maybe it's about time both the mother and the father were held responsible for their irresponsible act, rather than taking the easier way out. If she still doesn't want the child, so be it. She gives it up for adoption and goes on with her life.

Does anybody want to stop or reduce unwanted pregnancies? Well maybe this is the way to do it. If you get pregnant and you don't take a morning after pill to stop the process right there, then sorry honey, it's on you now. Under such a system maybe women will be more insistent on some kind of contraception. Why is it that the Left does not give a tinker's damn about the rights of an unborn baby? I flat out do not understand how anyone can bitch so much about various people issues after they are born but are totally willing to end a person's life prior to birth. It's similar to the BLM thing, where the Left only cares about black lives when they are killed by a cop, particularly a white cop but they say nothing at all about so many more black lives that are snuffed out every fucking day in Chicago and other big cities.

About slavery, there were no choices then but there is now. Plenty of choices, and if a woman makes some bad choices then she is the one who forces a decision between her inconvenience and the life of her unborn baby. Not anyone else, she and the father are responsible for this situation. So, what should society do about it? Do we preserve life or do we terminate life when it becomes inconvenient?

 

[meaner gene]

The Dredd Scott ruling was wrong. Black people •ARE• people, are human beings. It was always wrong to deny them that status, and it was always wrong to deny them basic human rights on the basis of denying their humanity.

The same is exactly true, also, of the unborn.

We will never, as a society, advance beyond where we were at Dredd Scott, until we repent of and repudiate this great evil against the unborn as we did of the same evil against blacks. It does us little good to repent of one form of a particular evil, as long as we continue to practice that same evil in an only slightly-different form.

Dred Scott was never overturned.

The 14th amendment nullified Dred Scott. As a legal decision its legal basis still stands.

 

[Coyote]

Apparently, logical argument is above your pay grade.

Can't answer it eh?

 

[toobfreak]

Birth has long been defined as the beginning of independent life,

Obviously.

of rights, etc.

That's the part I'm fuzzy about. I'm a little uncomfortable saying: "Sorry, you aren't born yet so you have no rights" to the fetal baby. After all, fetal growth is NECESSARY as first stages to get to a baby! Without it, you can have no babies. Being a baby entails a certain number of steps both in and out of the womb--- I can't separate them.

So, if 21 weeks is the earliest, then a cut off of 16 weeks shouldn't be unreasonable.

Agreed.

Birth is the one consistent factor here, including born early. Prior to that why should it have greater rights to the mother's body?

Not greater. But rights of some kind.

Yes, it does, because the baby is not wholly seperate or it could be removed and continue to live. Or, it would not die when the woman died.

True, but not because it isn't separate, but only because it is still DEPENDENT. Dependent on the mother for food, oxygen and nourishment. But I still don't see how being dependent on the mother absolves the fetus of rights or give the mother absolute right to life or death right up to birth.

 

[meaner gene]

1. Slavery involved only the slave owner's property rights. The slave had no rights.

2. There is no unrestricted right to abort a fetus.

3. What does "integrity" have to do with abortion or slavery?

Actually slave owners were allowed to "abort" their property at will. At any point, including from childhood through adulthood.

 

[meaner gene]

What about the integrity of the unborn baby and his/her right to the integrity of his/her body, indeed the very right to life itself?

Dred Scott made clear, unless the constitution grants the right of "personhood" to something, they do not have any rights as a "person". They are treated the same as property, with ownership rights of full determination over their property.

 

[task0778]

Birth has long been defined as the beginning of independent life, of rights, etc. Conception is just as arbritrary.

The point of viability is changing but at this point 21 weeks is the earliest surviving preemie. Prior to 24 weeks many that survive end up with severe life long conditions related to being premature. So, if 21 weeks is the earliest, then a cut off of 16 weeks shouldn't be unreasonable.

Birth is the one consistent factor here, including born early.

Prior to that why should it have greater rights to the mother's body?

So, right up until birth it's nothing more than a big pimple with a beating heart after 6 weeks. And a brain of it's own, with arms and legs and human organs. 5 minutes before it's a pimple with no rights at all and 5 minutes after it's a human life.

 

[meaner gene]

So, right up until birth it's nothing more than a big pimple with a beating heart after 6 weeks. And a brain of it's own, with arms and legs and human organs. 5 minutes before it's a pimple with no rights at all and 5 minutes after it's a human life.

Actually the constitution said that adult black people were nothing more than a big pimple. That the slave owner had the right to squeeze at will.

 

[meaner gene]

IF you want to grant personhood to the fetus, then do what they did in the 1800's with the 14th amendment, where they granted personhood to blacks.
Amend the constitution, otherwise it grants no such right to the unborn.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What does "integrity" have to do with abortion or slavery?

You're asking that of a depraved sociopath, that has no concept of integrity.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A woman has unprotected sex, gets pregnant and does nothing about it, and then decides she doesn't want the baby so she makes the decision to end it's life prematurely. A human being IS DEAD, to me that is perilously close to negligent homicide.

Negligent homicide is when you allow a human to die, as a result of failing to take actions that were your responsibility, in order to avoid that death.

This is something else. Abortion involves taking a willful action, that one knows and intends to cause the death of a human being.

If not for the loopholes that have been carved out around abortion, this would be recognized for what it truly is—First Degree Murder. Under additional “special circumstances” recognized in most jurisdictions, this would make those responsible eligible for the death penalty.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Dred Scott was never overturned.

The 14th amendment nullified Dred Scott. As a legal decision its legal basis still stands.

That's an odd bit of semantic bullshit that you've got there.

I think any rational mind would recognize that a ruling is overturned, if the Constitution itself is amended in a manner that invalidates that ruling.

I suppose you could test this theory by committing some act of discrimination that was held to be legal under the Dredd Scott decision, and when you faced legal consequences as a result of that act, citing Dredd Scott as your defense.

 

[Coyote]

What about the integrity of the unborn baby and his/her right to the integrity of his/her body, indeed the very right to life itself?

I've said, it's about competing rights.

If you place the rights of the unborn child over the rights of the mother - then do you do the same for the child AFTER birth?

A woman has unprotected sex, gets pregnant and does nothing about it, and then decides she doesn't want the baby so she makes the decision to end it's life prematurely. A human being IS DEAD, to me that is perilously close to negligent homicide. It ain't a pimple, right? A human life is terminated for no other reason than inconvenience and that stinks. So she has to carry the baby to term and give birth, well boo fucking hoo. She made certain choices during the entire process, maybe it's about time both the mother and the father were held responsible for their irresponsible act, rather than taking the easier way out. If she still doesn't want the child, so be it. She gives it up for adoption and goes on with her life.

There are many reason's why people get pregnant: carelessness, failed birth control, rape/incest, or even planned.

There are likewise many reason's they want an abortion. Nine months of pregnancy, birth, and the potential of serious health issues or even mortality, are nothing to sneeze at.

She is the one who has to deal with it, she is the one who takes the risks, the job loss, the education loss, the loss of giving up a child after birth and deals with it all. An embryo has no conception, no feeling, nothing but a potential to be born and become. It's not meant to sound cold and callous, but when a fertilized egg is considered as important in terms of rights as the body it may grow in, or the child who is born - then I see something wrong with that.

Human life for the sake of human life doesn't hold the same value to me as that life that is realized when it takes it's first breath and that potential is at viability. It's no more arbritrary than a fertilized egg having rights.

Does anybody want to stop or reduce unwanted pregnancies? Well maybe this is the way to do it. If you get pregnant and you don't take a morning after pill to stop the process right there, then sorry honey, it's on you now.

Do you REALLY want to stop unwanted pregnancies? How about:

Free or subsidized birth control and the morning after pill.
Universal education about sex, resonsibility, avoiding pregnancy, and resources if you get pregnancy. Hell - we do it for drivers ed but not for reproduction???

Abortion rates at an all time low (as of 2019 data) falling BELOW the advent of Roe vs. Wade and a lot of that is probably due to better birth control and the morning after pill.

But that doesn't remove the woman's right to make that choice.

Under such a system maybe women will be more insistent on some kind of contraception.

What makes you think they aren't? Again, abortion rates are at an all time low. But yet the right wants to remove contraception from insurance plans, restrict over the counter access to the morning after pill, opposes subsidized or free contraception and supress science based sex ed.

Why is it that the Left does not give a tinker's damn about the rights of an unborn baby? I flat out do not understand how anyone can bitch so much about various people issues after they are born but are totally willing to end a person's life prior to birth.

If the left didn't give a tinker's damn about the unborn baby, the majority of them would support NO restrictions, but that isn't the case. The majority supports restrictions later in pregnancy.

It's similar to the BLM thing, where the Left only cares about black lives when they are killed by a cop, particularly a white cop but they say nothing at all about so many more black lives that are snuffed out every fucking day in Chicago and other big cities.

It's no different than the right, which cares only about an unborn child in a woman's womb but says nothing at all about the destruction of stored embryos in invitro clinics.

Logically neither statement is really true. I see leftists concerned about the high number of black children killed by gun violence and I see rightists concerned about the ethics of invitro fertilization, just a lot less noise.

About slavery, there were no choices then but there is now. Plenty of choices, and if a woman makes some bad choices then she is the one who forces a decision between her inconvenience and the life of her unborn baby. Not anyone else, she and the father are responsible for this situation. So, what should society do about it? Do we preserve life or do we terminate life when it becomes inconvenient?

Choosing to have a child and child birth is not a matter of convenience. It is the biggest decision a woman can make. Boiling it down to "convenience" is as wrong as boiling a fetus down to a "pimple".

She is responsible for, takes the risks for and pays the price for either having a child or not. It should therefore be her choice.

I can compromise on restricting it. Can you compromise?

 

[meaner gene]

Negligent homicide is when you allow a human to die, as a result of failing to take actions that were your responsibility, in order to avoid that death.

This is something else. Abortion involves taking a willful action, that one knows and intends to cause the death of a human being.

If not for the loopholes that have been carved out around abortion, this would be recognized for what it truly is—First Degree Murder. Under additional “special circumstances” recognized in most jurisdictions, this would make those responsible eligible for the death penalty.

Legal question? If a woman is a drug or alcohol addict, such that their legal or illegal drug use would be either extremely harmful or fatal to their unborn child. Can the government force them to stop their "legal" drug use?

Think vaccination.