The Chronicles of Narcissist

[MechaPilot]

In the case of offspring, you may choose to value it differently, but from a biologists perspective, the chance to pass along one's genes to another generation is a HUGE benefit.

The biologists' perspective is rather skewed if taken in a vacuum like that. After all, the reprehensible act of rape offers a chance to pass along one's genes to another generation. I, and I'm sure you as well, would not consider rape to be a HUGE benefit to the mother, the child (who may well face abandonment or abuse at home because of its parentage), to society, or to the species. I also don't think it would count as a huge benefit to the perpetrator of the act, who could very well be ruining his own life by giving in to a deplorable impulse and potentially subjecting himself to prosecution and incarceration.

 

[Umbran]

When analyzing laws, we often look at legislative notes and drafters' intent.

How far into drafter's intent, Danny?

Because, how far do you think you have to go on that, or almost any other abortion-control law, to find the intent to inject religion into law, or the intent of misogynistic control of women? I suggest to you it is only so far as the nearest fundraising campaign speech.

That they chose not to draft fetal homicide laws the way you proposed is a strong implication that they knew exactly what they were doing.

So, do we take the actions of some sneaky, cowardly misogynists as the way things are rightly done?

But even if you DID draft the law as you stated, the logic is still circular: someone has drafted a law stating the fetus doesn't have rights because they said it doesn't have rights.

I am obviously not being clear. But, I don't think the particular bit of logic important enough to argue, as I can address this on other grounds.

Let us consider this implication of human status. First is to note that the Constitution does not speak of "humans", but of "persons". The words are only interchangeable because so far, we have never had a case where a person was not also a human. As soon as some animal rights activist gets a chimpanzee declared a "person", you will find all those definitions of homicide as killing a "human" to be inaccurate. Murder is killing a person, human or otherwise.

Having gotten past that little tidbit....

The SCOTUS, in Roe v. Wade explicitly rejected the fetal right to life argument.

"The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: ....

But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

-Roe v. Wade, Section IX A.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

Which is to say, the Founding Fathers and later framers *already* knew about this, and it is already covered. Thus, the "fetal homicide" law is junk. The State implication that a fetus is a person is trumped by the Federal direct statement that it is not. The Governor's office in question should be chastised for allowing a law onto the books that is already so clearly made unconstitutional by precedent.

 

[MechaPilot]

Which is to say, the Founding Fathers and later framers *already* knew about this, and it is already covered. Thus, the "fetal homicide" law is junk. The State implication that a fetus is a person is trumped by the Federal direct statement that it is not. The Governor's office in question should be chastised for allowing a law onto the books that is already so clearly made unconstitutional by precedent.

Especially when there is another way of accomplishing the same thing. Adding a sentencing kicker for instances where the victim of a homicide is pregnant, or adding a sentencing kicker to instances where a victim of assault is pregnant but loses the pregnancy due to the damage inflicted by the assault, punishes criminals who murder or abort a child against the mother's will without creating a constitutional conundrum.

 

[Umbran]

That's very true, that's why I posted what I did about not making a fortress of a dictionary. However, the first step in approaching anything is the general step.

That's fine, if you want to refer to it that way metaphorically, or poetically, to express your personal feelings about it.

But, the first step in a scientific question is *not* the general, but the specific. You cannot claim that it isn't just your feelings, because technically it is a parasite, as the technicians say it isn't.

 

[MechaPilot]

That's fine, if you want to refer to it that way metaphorically, or poetically, to express your personal feelings about it.

But, the first step in a scientific question is *not* the general, but the specific. You cannot claim that it isn't just your feelings, because technically it is a parasite, as the technicians say it isn't.

To be fair, I don't believe that I ever said a fetus is a parasite according the definition used by biologists. Science often uses definitions that the general public does not, as I mentioned earlier with my Pluto anecdote (and the meaning and usage of theory is another good example of that difference).

Under common parlance however, at least using a few different sources of definitions, a fetus can be rationally said to possibly be a kind of parasite. This may not hold scientific muster, but common parlance is not beholden to a scientific standard. And science, thankfully, holds itself to a different standard than that of common parlance.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How far into drafter's intent, Danny?

Because, how far do you think you have to go on that, or almost any other abortion-control law, to find the intent to inject religion into law, or the intent of misogynistic control of women? I suggest to you it is only so far as the nearest fundraising campaign speech.



So, do we take the actions of some sneaky, cowardly misogynists as the way things are rightly done?



I am obviously not being clear. But, I don't think the particular bit of logic important enough to argue, as I can address this on other grounds.

Let us consider this implication of human status. First is to note that the Constitution does not speak of "humans", but of "persons". The words are only interchangeable because so far, we have never had a case where a person was not also a human. As soon as some animal rights activist gets a chimpanzee declared a "person", you will find all those definitions of homicide as killing a "human" to be inaccurate. Murder is killing a person, human or otherwise.

Having gotten past that little tidbit....

The SCOTUS, in Roe v. Wade explicitly rejected the fetal right to life argument.

"The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: ....

But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

-Roe v. Wade, Section IX A.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

Which is to say, the Founding Fathers and later framers *already* knew about this, and it is already covered. Thus, the "fetal homicide" law is junk. The State implication that a fetus is a person is trumped by the Federal direct statement that it is not. The Governor's office in question should be chastised for allowing a law onto the books that is already so clearly made unconstitutional by precedent.

Last things first: in law, "human" and "person" are 2 similar but non-identical things. And even within those categories, the law makes distinctions.

For example, corporations have legal "personhood", but- majority SCOTUS opinion in Citizens United notwithstanding- they do not have all of the right of "humans". And even though the aforementioned case expands the rights of cooperate "persons" they don't have all of those rights either. Not yet, anyway. You still can't marry Microsoft.

"Human", in the legal sense, refers mainly to the biological definition. But it also incorporates vague philosophical and religious concepts that are damn difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. In addition, you almost never see "human" used drafting laws outside of a criminal code. Because of this, I think that- even as pro-choice advocates fear the fetal homicide laws as an attempted end-around to grant full rights to the unborn, I don't think efforts along those lines would pass a Constitutional test.

As to the first, one does not have to be misogynistic and/or religious to believe that abortion should be limited*; that a fetus has rights.

There is an old maxim: "the power to destroy lies within a single word". It means that once you find a word to distinguish "this" from" that", "that" becomes easier to hate or devalue, and thus, discard. You see this most obviously in hate speech: once you stop thinking of other human beings as human beings, but as your kind and __________ (fill in the blank with a racial epithet), the ____________ become dehumanized and easier to victimize.

IMHO, that is what has happened as the medical terminology for a gestating human, "fetus", in the modern abortion debate. To be clear, I am not saying that the pro choice side has intentionally dehumanized babies as "fetuses" in order to further their goals. I am saying that the use of the term has causes a disconnect and distancing from what we're discussing, living but unborn humans.









* the retort "but it sure helps" springs to mind. Regardless, I don't think most people, looking at my politics as a whole, would call ME a misogynist, and I personally came to be opposed to abortion years before receiving any formal religious teachings on the matter- in the 1970s-80s, at least, discussion of such subjects in Catholic religious classes was limited to the teens and older.

 

[Umbran]

As to the first, one does not have to be misogynistic and/or religious to believe that abortion should be limited*; that a fetus has rights.

That's dodging the question, Danny. I wasn't asking about "one", a theoretical person. You said that we look into the author's intent when interpretting at the law - so I am asking about the author's intent! In these pieces of legislation, how far do you have to go into the legislator's intent - which you have already stated is relevant in interpreting the law - to find intended misogyny or intended religious law? My understanding is that the answer is "not far at all".

That, sir, is a problem. It says very clearly that, even if we are talking about the rights to two people (mother and child), then the intent of the law is to suborn the rights of one of them! That's not acceptable.

By the way, I recognize the difference between a person who is religious, and one who actively pushes to have religion in law. There are people of good faith who recognize the need for separation.

IMHO, that is what has happened as the medical terminology for a gestating human, "fetus", in the modern abortion debate. To be clear, I am not saying that the pro choice side has intentionally dehumanized babies as "fetuses" in order to further their goals. I am saying that the use of the term has causes a disconnect and distancing from what we're discussing, living but unborn humans.

"Living, unborn human," carries the preconceived notion that we are talking about a human that should already have rights. "Fetus," rejects that notion. We have no neutral language that does not contain one or the other of these assumptions. You say we are distancing ourselves from the thing, but others would say you are trying to presuppose something that isn't true! Culturally, we do not have consensus on this, which probably means that we should not be legislating it.

Moreover and more importantly, there's a significant ironic point to what you say - if *anyone* has a disconnect and distancing from what we are discussing, from the fact that we are talking about a human life, it is the party that generally puts forth abortion control legislation, and also routinely attempts to eliminate support for children *after* they are born.

I have mentioned this before - the state has no business mucking in on abortion until *after* it has proven that it gives a darn about what happens to the kid afterwards. The State is currently an unfit parent, and should not be allowed to decide whether a child comes into the world.

 

[Enkhidu]

I'm probably going to catch some flak for this, but I don't care. "Fetus" is sort of a pleasant euphemism for a parasite. It causes all manner of problems for the mother, and (so far as I know) does not contribute to the well-being of the mother such that it could be classified as a symbiotic relationship. Now, most times that parasite is probably wanted and loved. However, in cases where it is not wanted the government truly has no more right to interfere with its removal than they do with the removal of a tapeworm.

Are you a capitalist? Some strategic word replacement and this tirade is positively Randian.

 

[tomBitonti]

Considering that a woman can be implanted with a fertilized egg not of her own, and considering the range of meanings of parasite, I don't think the discussion is addressing the primary issue raised by Mechapilot: A pregnancy may be unwanted, and while conferring a benefit in some cases, does not always confer a benefit, and has considerable cost, leaving the balance of value uncertain.

Also, the discussion of personhood seems to miss important points: A woman who is close to labor with a viable fetus would be considered by most folks to be carrying an unborn person, with murder an appropriate charge if the woman and fetus are killed. And at the same time, most would not consider this to be a dual murder if the woman was just implanted with eggs at a fertility clinic. I don't know how this works out legally, I'm looking at what seems to be folks most likely views.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's dodging the question, Danny. I wasn't asking about "one", a theoretical person. You said that we look into the author's intent when interpretting at the law - so I am asking about the author's intent! In these pieces of legislation, how far do you have to go into the legislator's intent - which you have already stated is relevant in interpreting the law - to find intended misogyny or intended religious law? My understanding is that the answer is "not far at all".

Sorry I wasn't clear: when I said "one", I meant as in "a person". Which is to say that legislators come to be anti abortion for as many different reasons as the rest of the population. While misogyny and religion are certainly prominently in the mix, people can come to that position without either, as I did.

And when we look at a legislative intent, you don't look at the words of just one legislator. What you see are notes and abstracts of the bodies's debates as a whole...usually unattributed, though some key phases or speeches may get individual breakouts/footnotes. IOW, it's kind of a Cliff's Notes to a law in question.

So while you will probably be able to see some of what you decry, you will also see concurrence by those who agree with the position, if not the rationale.

And let's be honest: those who concur but are not misogynists or religious are both unlikely to speak up on the matter (for fear of misunderstanding), nor are they likely to be covered by the press if they do.

We have no neutral language that does not contain one or the other of these assumptions.

Hmm..."potential offspring"?

Moreover and more importantly, there's a significant ironic point to what you say - if *anyone* has a disconnect and distancing from what we are discussing, from the fact that we are talking about a human life, it is the party that generally puts forth abortion control legislation, and also routinely attempts to eliminate support for children *after* they are born.

I have mentioned this myself somewhere, I don't recall if it was in this thread or not: there are an increasingly vocal group of religious types in both major US political parties who are calling politicians to task over this exact point, myself among them. Put succinctly: if the state is going to make safe abortion difficult to obtain in non-.life or death cases, it must follow through with a decent support structure once the child has been brought into the world.

Not only is it- to us- a moral and ethical thing, it shares a certain formulations with established legal precedent.

Generally speaking, no person is obligated to render aid or save the life of another unless it is their job, or they caused the person to need aid or endangered. IOW, a duty to save a life can arise by job description or by action.

Similarly, the position goes, the state is not obligated to render aid to children except when they set up programs to do so (there is a fiduciary duty to ensure the programs are properly run) or (here's the new part) if the state has demanded that child be born.