• Has anybody argued self-defense as the justification for abortion?

    From S K@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 2 10:28:03 2023
    "the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.

    The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortion

    Can a woman argue that she has a right to choose abortion ("murder her baby" as "pro-lifers" would put it) to give herself a better chance of surviving a pregnancy?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 2 11:02:26 2023
    "S K" wrote in message news:81fcf53e-b2ed-4a82-a348-2602c8167f8an@googlegroups.com...

    "the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.

    The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live >neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related >to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortion

    Can a woman argue that she has a right to choose abortion ("murder her
    baby" as "pro-lifers" would put it) to give herself a better chance of >surviving a pregnancy?

    No. A good definition of self-defense is this:

    "To successfully claim self-defense, the defendant must prove four elements. First, with exceptions, the defendant must prove that he or she was
    confronted with an unprovoked attack. Second, the defendant must prove that
    the threat of injury or death was imminent. Third, the defendant must prove that the degree of force used in self-defense was objectively reasonable
    under the circumstances. Fourth, the defendant must prove that he or she had
    an objectively reasonable fear that he or she was going to be injured or
    killed unless he or she used self-defense. "

    Source: https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/5-2-self-defense/

    Unless it's caused by rape, it's hard to argue that the pregnancy is the
    result of an "unprovoked attack". It's also hard to prove that the
    defendant felt the risk of injury or death was "imminent" if the chance of death was only 8.8 out of 100,000. That works out to something like .0088
    %. That would also seem like much too low a percentage for an "objectively reasonable" fear of injury or death.
    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 2 11:03:04 2023
    According to S K <skpflex1@gmail.com>:
    "the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.

    Frequently. Here are a few articles:

    https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PPP504/Davis%20Nancy%2C%20Abortion%20and%20self%20defence.pdf

    https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/refuting-abortion-as-self-defense/

    (from 1997) https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/02/01/abortion-as-self-defense/1cf3aaf4-fe8c-487f-9e80-2f9ab9d30172/

    The response from the forced birth crowd seems, as far as I can tell,
    to claim it's not really self defense since the fetus doesn't
    deliberately intend to harm the woman, and a lot of innuendo
    implying that's not the real reason they want an abortion.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to S K on Mon Jan 2 13:43:23 2023
    S K <skpflex1@gmail.com> wrote:

    "the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.

    The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered
    live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The
    mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per
    100,000 abortion

    Can a woman argue that she has a right to choose abortion ("murder
    her baby" as "pro-lifers" would put it) to give herself a better
    chance of surviving a pregnancy?

    To the extent it might be a good defense, your scenario wouldn't
    qualify. To qualify as self defense the threat has to be very serious
    and, more importantly, imminent. Saying that the chance of death is
    .088% compared to .006% doesn't qualify as imminent.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to Levine" on Tue Jan 3 09:39:41 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 2 Jan 2023 11:03:04 -0800 (PST), "John
    Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

    According to S K <skpflex1@gmail.com>:
    "the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.

    Frequently. Here are a few articles:

    https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PPP504/Davis%20Nancy%2C%20Abortion%20and%20self%20defence.pdf

    https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/refuting-abortion-as-self-defense/

    (from 1997) https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/02/01/abortion-as-self-defense/1cf3aaf4-fe8c-487f-9e80-2f9ab9d30172/

    The response from the forced birth crowd seems, as far as I can tell,
    to claim it's not really self defense since the fetus doesn't
    deliberately intend to harm the woman,

    So if a mad man were shooting his gun wildly but in your general
    direction, would that he doesn't deliberately intend to hurt you be an
    argument against stopping him, shooting him to death if necessary?

    If a reckless driver were speeding through town at 100mph, with no
    intention to hurt anyone, just because he thought it was fun, would that
    be a reason not to stop him, even with lethal force?

    If one was in a burning house, would the fact that the fire doesn't deliberately intend to kill you be an argument against extinguishing the
    fire.

    and a lot of innuendo
    implying that's not the real reason they want an abortion.

    I haven't read the links yet, but I have no doubt woman who want an
    aborion and need to provide a reason would say this even if there were
    no truth to it. And like "I don't recall", who can tell what a witness
    can recall and who can tell how much pain the woman is in, that might
    foretell a threat to her life. So it seems like an effective lie to
    tell, but otoh, how to know when it's a lie and when it's not?


    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to skpflex1@gmail.com on Tue Jan 3 09:38:55 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 2 Jan 2023 10:28:03 -0800 (PST), S K <skpflex1@gmail.com> wrote:

    "the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.

    The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortion

    Can a woman argue that she has a right to choose abortion ("murder her baby" as "pro-lifers" would put it) to give herself a better chance of surviving a pregnancy?

    As a matter of fact, in Jewish law, when abortion is permitted, that is
    the very reason it's permitted. When the mother's life is threatened,
    the fetus is considered a rodef, a pursuer [who intends to kill the one
    he pursues], and it specifically says in the Torah that when one pursues
    you with the intent to kill you, you should turn and slay him.

    So often (almost all the time?), when an abortion is permitted, it's
    required.

    The situation changes when the baby's head, or half his body, is out,
    but I've wondered why that should make a difference. Perhaps the
    difference is practical, in that after that point, they never are a
    threat to her life anymore anyhow. Isn't it much easier, aren't they
    almost done, once the head is out?

    I haven't' heard about situations when only the health of the mother is
    in danger, and I don't even know what is referred to when American news
    stories refer to the health of the mother. Her future fertility would
    be one thing, but maybe there are others. If some adult were trying to
    attack a woman in order to end her fertility (assume it's an appendage
    that could be cut off without killing her), I think she'd be allowed to
    use lethal force to stop that, but I'm guessing. This may be discussed
    in the Talmud, where legal details are discussed.

    AIUI, American courts only cite foreign courts when they have neither
    American statute nor American precedent to cite, so i doubt this would
    have much force in the logic of an American court. Or maybe it is that
    they might cite some foreign law but only as a miscellaneous side
    comment, not one that has any weight. Sometimes I think American courts
    could benefit by giving some weight to foreign laws and case law.


    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to micky on Tue Jan 3 12:46:59 2023
    On 1/3/2023 9:39 AM, micky wrote:
    So if a mad man were shooting his gun wildly but in your general
    direction, would that he doesn't deliberately intend to hurt you be an argument against stopping him, shooting him to death if necessary?

    I can imagine two possible scenarios like the above.

    1. You and the madman are the only to humans in the area. In this
    situation, your correct action is to tell him to put the gun down. If he
    starts to point the gun in your general direction (I would say anywhere
    within 90 degrees of you), you can kill him.

    2. There are other humans in the area, some of whom are in danger even
    if he hasn't shot anybody yet. This comes under "defense of others", and
    you have the same right to protect others as you do yourself. (Unless
    the others explicitly say they don't want your protection.)


    If a reckless driver were speeding through town at 100mph, with no
    intention to hurt anyone, just because he thought it was fun, would that
    be a reason not to stop him, even with lethal force?

    This is an escalation situation. Cops are trained to handle this. First
    follow him with your "gumball machine" (flashing red and blue lights)
    going. If he doesn't pull over, you turn on your siren. If he still
    doesn't pull over, you can use the minimum force necessary to get him to
    stop. The usual recommendation is to radio for other cops to assist you.
    They will set up road blocks, arrange multiple cars to approach from
    different directions so as to eventually box him in.

    *If* you see him approaching a busy intersection at 100MPH, you *might*
    be allowed to shoot at him, but note that this is likely to result in a
    a car with nobody in control continuing through the intersection, so
    it's very much a last resort. If you do this, be prepared to defend your actions before a board of inquiry. You'll probably come out without any significant punishment -- maybe "days at the beach" -- time off with
    pay, but if the board thinks you were reckless you will probably be
    suspended without pay, get a black mark on your record (which will
    interfere with future promotions), or perhaps get fired.


    If one was in a burning house, would the fact that the fire doesn't deliberately intend to kill you be an argument against extinguishing the fire.

    The rules about human beings are different from the rules about animals
    other than humans, which are different from the rules about property,
    which are different from the rules about things (like fire and flood)
    that are none of the above.

    You can extinguish a fire without worrying about intent. In fact you can extinguish a fire in your house without regard to anything except your
    own desires and perhaps those of your family and/or housemates.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From S K@21:1/5 to S K on Wed Jan 4 11:49:32 2023
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:28:05 PM UTC-5, S K wrote:
    "the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.

    The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortion

    Can a woman argue that she has a right to choose abortion ("murder her baby" as "pro-lifers" would put it) to give herself a better chance of surviving a pregnancy?

    Self-defense is considered a NATURAL right and is not in the constitution. Actually the right to be armed stems from the NATURAL right of self-defense in the Scalia interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, divorcing it from membership in a militia.

    the notion that you can kill in self-defense only in response to an IMMINENT threat is just the way self-defense laws are written NOW.

    the fetus can cause severe injury/disability/death to the mother at any point during gestation. It must be tested in court whether the mother has an unconditional right to abortion to end the threat to her life, although the threat is only probabilitic
    and medical advances mitigate the threats constantly..

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to S K on Wed Jan 4 20:56:11 2023
    On 1/4/2023 11:49 AM, S K wrote:
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:28:05 PM UTC-5, S K wrote:
    "the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.

    The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortion

    Can a woman argue that she has a right to choose abortion ("murder her baby" as "pro-lifers" would put it) to give herself a better chance of surviving a pregnancy?
    Self-defense is considered a NATURAL right and is not in the constitution. Actually the right to be armed stems from the NATURAL right of self-defense in the Scalia interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, divorcing it from membership in a militia.

    the notion that you can kill in self-defense only in response to an IMMINENT threat is just the way self-defense laws are written NOW.

    the fetus can cause severe injury/disability/death to the mother at any point during gestation. It must be tested in court whether the mother has an unconditional right to abortion to end the threat to her life, although the threat is only
    probabilitic and medical advances mitigate the threats constantly..

    Sorry. I have libertarian leanings myself, but this is
    misc.LEGAL.moderated. It's about laws -- the laws of some country, state/province, city, etc. Even "International Law," which is a loose collection of treaties that bind countries that sign them, but have no
    effect in countries that don't.

    You can argue forever about natural rights, but the only law that is
    going to be recognized in court is previous rulings ("common law") and
    statute law. Statute law can, in some cases, override common law. For
    example, the "Castle Doctrine"(1) and "Stand your ground" laws(2)
    override the Common Law duty of retreat.

    But even in states where the right of self-defense is broadest, you do
    not have the right to defend yourself against speculative threats.
    "Well, he might attack me next week, so I decided to kill him to prevent
    that."

    (1) Traditionally, you were required to break off from and retreat from
    a conflict if you could safely do so. Castle Doctrine says you are not
    required to do so when defending your residence against an intruder.
    Five states have the original Castle Doctrine, three states extend this
    to your workplace, and one extends it to your vehicle.

    (2) "Stand your ground" removes the "duty to retreat." If attacked, you
    can use force (up to and including lethal force, if needed) to defend
    yourself without retreating. All but 13 states now have "stand your
    ground" laws. And all but 4 of those have "Castle Doctrine".

    Maybe self-defense should extend to possible future threats, but that's
    not the way the law is written in any country or state that I'm aware
    of. In US law, self-defense is either (a) derived from English common
    law and/or the UK "constitution", which itself derives from the Magna
    Carta, or (b) specified by the statute law in the state where the
    alleged crime occurred. The English common law recognizes a right to
    defend yourself against an imminent threat of death or great bodily
    harm. You cannot use lethal force to defend yourself against somebody threatening to punch you

    AFAIK, no US state recognizes a right to defend yourself against
    somebody walking down the sidewalk who *might* suddenly turn on you and
    kill you.

    As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in the
    John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never
    live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live
    for mine."

    Of course, US courts do not recognize that as a basis for rights, nor do
    the courts of any other country that I'm aware of.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Thu Jan 5 10:13:58 2023
    "Barry Gold" wrote in message news:tp4rm9$2c9ks$7@dont-email.me...

    On 1/4/2023 11:49 AM, S K wrote:
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:28:05 PM UTC-5, S K wrote:
    "the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.

    The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live
    neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate
    related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortion

    Can a woman argue that she has a right to choose abortion ("murder her
    baby" as "pro-lifers" would put it) to give herself a better chance of
    surviving a pregnancy?
    Self-defense is considered a NATURAL right and is not in the
    constitution. Actually the right to be armed stems from the NATURAL
    right of self-defense in the Scalia interpretation of the 2nd Amendment,
    divorcing it from membership in a militia.

    the notion that you can kill in self-defense only in response to an
    IMMINENT threat is just the way self-defense laws are written NOW.

    the fetus can cause severe injury/disability/death to the mother at any
    point during gestation. It must be tested in court whether the mother
    has an unconditional right to abortion to end the threat to her life,
    although the threat is only probabilitic and medical advances mitigate
    the threats constantly..

    Sorry. I have libertarian leanings myself, but this is
    misc.LEGAL.moderated. It's about laws -- the laws of some country, >state/province, city, etc. Even "International Law," which is a loose >collection of treaties that bind countries that sign them, but have no
    effect in countries that don't.

    You can argue forever about natural rights, but the only law that is going
    to be recognized in court is previous rulings ("common law") and statute
    law. Statute law can, in some cases, override common law. For example, the >"Castle Doctrine"(1) and "Stand your ground" laws(2) override the Common
    Law duty of retreat.

    But even in states where the right of self-defense is broadest, you do not >have the right to defend yourself against speculative threats. "Well, he >might attack me next week, so I decided to kill him to prevent that."

    (1) Traditionally, you were required to break off from and retreat from a >conflict if you could safely do so. Castle Doctrine says you are not
    required to do so when defending your residence against an intruder. Five >states have the original Castle Doctrine, three states extend this to your >workplace, and one extends it to your vehicle.

    (2) "Stand your ground" removes the "duty to retreat." If attacked, you can >use force (up to and including lethal force, if needed) to defend yourself >without retreating. All but 13 states now have "stand your ground" laws.
    And all but 4 of those have "Castle Doctrine".

    Maybe self-defense should extend to possible future threats, but that's not >the way the law is written in any country or state that I'm aware of. In US >law, self-defense is either (a) derived from English common law and/or the
    UK "constitution", which itself derives from the Magna Carta, or (b) >specified by the statute law in the state where the alleged crime occurred. >The English common law recognizes a right to defend yourself against an >imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. You cannot use lethal force
    to defend yourself against somebody threatening to punch you

    AFAIK, no US state recognizes a right to defend yourself against somebody >walking down the sidewalk who *might* suddenly turn on you and kill you.

    As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in the
    John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never
    live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for >mine."

    Of course, US courts do not recognize that as a basis for rights, nor do
    the courts of any other country that I'm aware of.


    The Galt quote (which, by the way, is actually a reworked version of the earlier and somewhat similar quote by Howard Roark) does not address the
    real issue in the abortion debate which is when does human life begin. I
    don't think many people would argue for the right to abort an 8 or 9-month
    old fetus that can exist outside the womb. Most people would rightly think
    of that as murder. On the other hand, I suspect most (though clearly not
    all) people would have no trouble with a woman taking a morning-after pill
    to abort an embryo just hours after conception. The real question is where between 1-day and 9-months does a human life actually begin. That is the
    real issue in the abortion debate which unfortunately gets lost in all the debate about reproductive rights and privacy.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From S K@21:1/5 to Rick on Thu Jan 5 12:36:04 2023
    On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
    "Barry Gold" wrote in message news:tp4rm9$2c9ks$7...@dont-email.me...

    On 1/4/2023 11:49 AM, S K wrote:
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:28:05 PM UTC-5, S K wrote:
    "the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.

    The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live >>> neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate
    related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortion

    Can a woman argue that she has a right to choose abortion ("murder her >>> baby" as "pro-lifers" would put it) to give herself a better chance of >>> surviving a pregnancy?
    Self-defense is considered a NATURAL right and is not in the
    constitution. Actually the right to be armed stems from the NATURAL
    right of self-defense in the Scalia interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, >> divorcing it from membership in a militia.

    the notion that you can kill in self-defense only in response to an
    IMMINENT threat is just the way self-defense laws are written NOW.

    the fetus can cause severe injury/disability/death to the mother at any
    point during gestation. It must be tested in court whether the mother
    has an unconditional right to abortion to end the threat to her life,
    although the threat is only probabilitic and medical advances mitigate
    the threats constantly..

    Sorry. I have libertarian leanings myself, but this is >misc.LEGAL.moderated. It's about laws -- the laws of some country, >state/province, city, etc. Even "International Law," which is a loose >collection of treaties that bind countries that sign them, but have no >effect in countries that don't.

    You can argue forever about natural rights, but the only law that is going >to be recognized in court is previous rulings ("common law") and statute >law. Statute law can, in some cases, override common law. For example, the >"Castle Doctrine"(1) and "Stand your ground" laws(2) override the Common >Law duty of retreat.

    But even in states where the right of self-defense is broadest, you do not >have the right to defend yourself against speculative threats. "Well, he >might attack me next week, so I decided to kill him to prevent that."

    (1) Traditionally, you were required to break off from and retreat from a >conflict if you could safely do so. Castle Doctrine says you are not >required to do so when defending your residence against an intruder. Five >states have the original Castle Doctrine, three states extend this to your >workplace, and one extends it to your vehicle.

    (2) "Stand your ground" removes the "duty to retreat." If attacked, you can >use force (up to and including lethal force, if needed) to defend yourself >without retreating. All but 13 states now have "stand your ground" laws. >And all but 4 of those have "Castle Doctrine".

    Maybe self-defense should extend to possible future threats, but that's not >the way the law is written in any country or state that I'm aware of. In US >law, self-defense is either (a) derived from English common law and/or the >UK "constitution", which itself derives from the Magna Carta, or (b) >specified by the statute law in the state where the alleged crime occurred. >The English common law recognizes a right to defend yourself against an >imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. You cannot use lethal force >to defend yourself against somebody threatening to punch you

    AFAIK, no US state recognizes a right to defend yourself against somebody >walking down the sidewalk who *might* suddenly turn on you and kill you.

    As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in the >John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never >live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for >mine."

    Of course, US courts do not recognize that as a basis for rights, nor do >the courts of any other country that I'm aware of.

    The Galt quote (which, by the way, is actually a reworked version of the earlier and somewhat similar quote by Howard Roark) does not address the
    real issue in the abortion debate which is when does human life begin. I don't think many people would argue for the right to abort an 8 or 9-month old fetus that can exist outside the womb. Most people would rightly think
    of that as murder. On the other hand, I suspect most (though clearly not
    all) people would have no trouble with a woman taking a morning-after pill
    to abort an embryo just hours after conception. The real question is where between 1-day and 9-months does a human life actually begin. That is the
    real issue in the abortion debate which unfortunately gets lost in all the debate about reproductive rights and privacy.

    --

    "When life begins" is a red herring.

    With the present state of medical technology, as soon as the fetus forms it is a threat to the life and well-being of the mother.

    I'd use the "pro-lifers'" argument - it has different DNA - it is a different entity.

    once you properly define self-defense, the mother should have a natural right to expel the threat to her life right from conception all the way to late pregnancy.


    the maternal instinct makes sure this won't happen very often.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Thu Jan 5 12:38:04 2023
    On January 4, Barry Gold wrote:
    As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in the
    John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never
    live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live
    for mine."

    um, how does that quote relate to abortion?

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 5 12:36:54 2023
    According to Rick <rick@nospam.com>:
    I don't think many people would argue for the right to abort an 8 or 9-month >old fetus that can exist outside the womb. Most people would rightly think >of that as murder. On the other hand, I suspect most (though clearly not >all) people would have no trouble with a woman taking a morning-after pill
    to abort an embryo just hours after conception. The real question is where >between 1-day and 9-months does a human life actually begin.

    This sort of argument suffers from assuming its conclusions. While I
    will agree that an unfertilized egg is not a person, and a baby about
    to have the umbilical cord cut is a person, there is no magic
    millisecond where you can say it wasn't a person before and after it
    is. The growing embryo and then fetus slowly becomes more like a
    person over the course of a pregnancy. At any stage, the answer to
    questions whether an abortion is advisable or permissible is "it
    depends." Even very close to full term there are occasional horrible
    situations where the fetus has defects that means it could not live
    very long, and continuing the pregnancy would injure or kill the
    woman.

    The law is not at all good at making decisions like this, and judges
    and legislators are unlikely to have a better understanding of a
    situation than the woman and her doctor and her family, despite what
    too many forced birth advocates insist.

    This is getting pretty far afield from the law.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to RichD on Thu Jan 5 20:07:35 2023
    On 1/5/2023 12:38 PM, RichD wrote:
    On January 4, Barry Gold wrote:
    As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in the
    John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never
    live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live
    for mine."

    um, how does that quote relate to abortion?
    Those who would ban abortion are forcing the woman to (at least
    partially) live her life for the sake of the fetus. I consider this a
    violation of her basic rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
    happiness".

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to John Levine on Thu Jan 5 20:06:13 2023
    "John Levine" wrote in message news:tp779q$2a46$1@gal.iecc.com...

    According to Rick <rick@nospam.com>:
    I don't think many people would argue for the right to abort an 8 or >>9-month
    old fetus that can exist outside the womb. Most people would rightly
    think
    of that as murder. On the other hand, I suspect most (though clearly not >>all) people would have no trouble with a woman taking a morning-after pill >>to abort an embryo just hours after conception. The real question is
    where
    between 1-day and 9-months does a human life actually begin.

    This sort of argument suffers from assuming its conclusions. While I
    will agree that an unfertilized egg is not a person, and a baby about
    to have the umbilical cord cut is a person, there is no magic
    millisecond where you can say it wasn't a person before and after it
    is. The growing embryo and then fetus slowly becomes more like a
    person over the course of a pregnancy. At any stage, the answer to
    questions whether an abortion is advisable or permissible is "it
    depends." Even very close to full term there are occasional horrible >situations where the fetus has defects that means it could not live
    very long, and continuing the pregnancy would injure or kill the
    woman.

    The law is not at all good at making decisions like this, and judges
    and legislators are unlikely to have a better understanding of a
    situation than the woman and her doctor and her family, despite what
    too many forced birth advocates insist.

    This is getting pretty far afield from the law.


    I don't think it is far afield at all. The law constantly has to wrestle
    with issues like this. A similar example is at what point should you
    consider a person to legally be an adult. Most people would say a 7-year
    old isn't mature enough to be an adult and needs to be under the care of an adult. But most 30-year olds probably are old enough to be legally
    considered adults. So where do you draw the line. Do we make it 12, which
    is the age when most children attain puberty? Do we make it 14, when many people first start to work? Do we make it 18, the age when most people graduate from high school? Or do we make it 25, which is the age when neurologists say the cerebral cortex is fully formed? For a variety of reasons, most legislators in the US have set 18 as the legal age of
    adulthood. This is despite the fact that many people under 18 are perfectly capable of living as adults (and some get legal permission to do so) and we
    all know people over 18 who are really immature and incapable of living as adults (and there are laws that address these cases as well). The point is that legislatures use the best information they have to come up with a reasonable definition that will work in most situations.

    Abortion is no different. Legislators again have to use the best
    information they can to come up with a reasonable definition of when life begins, such as when scientists say that the brain develops or thinking
    begins or a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb. Sure there will
    be exceptions - such as the rare case where even an 8-month old embryo can't survive or a case where the brain develops early - but the law has to do the best job it can to define rules that will work in most cases.


    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to Gold on Thu Jan 5 20:11:43 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 4 Jan 2023 20:56:11 -0800 (PST), Barry
    Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:

    . For
    example, the "Castle Doctrine"(1) and "Stand your ground" laws(2)
    override the Common Law duty of retreat.

    I thought the Castle Doctrine repeated the Common Law duty of retreat,
    which iiuc never applied to one's home?

    I thought Stand your ground applied outside, which strikes me as
    immoral, whether legal or not.

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Rick on Thu Jan 5 20:17:35 2023
    On 1/5/2023 10:13 AM, Rick wrote:
    The Galt quote (which, by the way, is actually a reworked version of the earlier and somewhat similar quote by Howard Roark) does not address the
    real issue in the abortion debate which is when does human life begin.
    I don't think many people would argue for the right to abort an 8 or
    9-month old fetus that can exist outside the womb.  Most people would rightly think of that as murder.  On the other hand, I suspect most
    (though clearly not all) people would have no trouble with a woman
    taking a morning-after pill to abort an embryo just hours after
    conception.  The real question is where between 1-day and 9-months does
    a human life actually begin.  That is the real issue in the abortion
    debate which unfortunately gets lost in all the debate about
    reproductive rights and privacy.

    I consider the right to control your body nearly absolute. Now, if you
    have a fetus that can live on its own, the right thing to do is to
    trigger birth at that point (we should be able to do that by now) and
    transfer the preemie to an incubator.

    Other possibilities would include fetal transplants (finding a host
    mother would be left up to the anti-abortion folks) or an artificial
    uterus. We can transplant cow embryos. Why not human ones? And I expect
    we will be able to build a uterine replicator within the next 50 years.
    I expect the first half of the 21st century to be the era of biological
    and medical "miracles", of the same magnitude as what we have seen in
    computers in the second half of the 20th.
    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to Gold on Fri Jan 6 08:20:04 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 5 Jan 2023 20:07:35 -0800 (PST), Barry
    Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:

    On 1/5/2023 12:38 PM, RichD wrote:
    On January 4, Barry Gold wrote:
    As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in the >>> John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never
    live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live
    for mine."

    um, how does that quote relate to abortion?
    Those who would ban abortion are forcing the woman to (at least
    partially) live her life for the sake of the fetus. I consider this a >violation of her basic rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of >happiness".

    Does that clause, from the DOI, have any legal standing? I wish it did
    but I didn't think so.

    My feeling is that, in a free country, a person should be allowed to do anything that doesn't hurt someone else, and thus I think the right to interracial and homosexusal sexual relations and birth control doesn't
    depend on a right to privacy, only a right to freedom. -- Abortion on
    the other hand does affect someone else.

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to rick@nospam.com on Fri Jan 6 08:21:52 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:13:58 -0800 (PST), "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:


    The Galt quote (which, by the way, is actually a reworked version of the >earlier and somewhat similar quote by Howard Roark) does not address the
    real issue in the abortion debate which is when does human life begin. I

    I don't understand why everyone says this is the question. The answer
    seems obvious. Human life began long ago, 10's of thousands of years
    ago, and has continued without interruption ever since.

    A more relevant question seems to be, When does a life, a specific human
    life, begin? But I have never seen that question asked. It's always
    the way you just wrote it, except further down you wrote it the way I
    would have!

    It seems to me a particular human life begins the moment after the sperm combines with the egg. But I wouldn't call killing it then murder. I
    myself don't have a problem with abortion until it's old enough to feel
    pain. AFAICT from google, this was never discussed until 7 years ago.
    No one seems to have talked about it before 7 years ago and since then,
    people rely on doctors to tell them about what is possible.

    I don't know how old a fetus has to be to feel pain, but the arguments
    I've seen that they don't, don't convince me.

    https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html
    'According to a statement from ACOG, a fetus's brain and nervous system
    "do not have the capacity to process, recognize or feel pain during
    the."' This reminds me of when they thought they could determine
    intelligence from the shape of one's skull. Since we don't know that
    much about how thinking works or how pain works, I don't think we can
    know how much development it takes for someone to feel pain. Their own statement clearly means the fetus has a brain and a nervous system. How
    do they know what it can and can't do? Even if it's as primitive as 2
    tin cans tied together with a string, that works too.

    "Unlike with blood pressure or body temperature, for example, there's no definitive way to measure pain, Davis said. People do have ways of communicating how much pain they're feeling; for example, doctors often
    ask people to rate their pain on a scale of 1 to 10. But the experience
    of pain is fundamentally subjective, Davis said. In other words, what
    might be very painful to one person may cause very little pain to
    someone else." I don't think I'm just guessing that being torn apart,
    limb by limb, as some abortions are done, is painful, and substantially painful, to anyone of any age who can feel pain.

    https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/your-baby/fetal-development-week-by-week_10406730
    This seems like an apolitical, neutral page. I hope you will find it interesting, even if you find it disconcerting. I didn't write it.

    "12 weeks This week your baby's reflexes kick in: Their fingers will
    soon begin to open and close, toes will curl, and their mouth will make
    sucking movements, although you won't feel their movements quite yet.
    Your baby is the size of a lime."
    If it has reflexes, are its nerves not working?
    "14 weeks Your baby's brain impulses have begun to fire and they're
    using their facial muscles. Their kidneys are working now, too. If you
    have an ultrasound, you may even see them sucking their thumb. Your baby
    is the size of a lemon." It says, Your baby's brain impulses have begun
    to fire.
    "15 weeks Your baby's eyelids are still fused shut, but they can
    sense light. If you shine a flashlight on your tummy, they'll move away
    from the beam. Ultrasounds done this week may reveal your baby's sex.
    Your baby is the size of an apple."
    "19 weeks Your baby's senses smell, vision, touch, taste and
    hearing are developing and they may be able to hear your voice. Talk,
    sing or read out loud to them, if you feel like it. Your baby is the
    size of an heirloom tomato."
    All these are 19 weeks or earlier, yet the url above says "however,
    doctors groups and other critics of the law argue that a fetus cannot
    feel pain at 20 weeks gestational age.... "The science shows that based
    on gestational age, the fetus is not capable of feeling pain until the
    third trimester," said Kate Connors, a spokesperson for ACOG. The third trimester begins at about 27 weeks of pregnancy." so it can do all
    those things involving sensory nerves listed above before 20 weeks but
    it can't feel pain until 27 weeks. I don't believe it. I'm not
    suggesting banning the abortions, just giving a pain killer.

    Or an even stronger, more insulting version:
    "This Law Just Took Abortion Pseudoscience to a New Low" https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/utah-will-now-force-doctors-anesthetize-fetuses-during-later-abortions/
    "Supporters of the new law, called the Protecting Unborn Children
    Amendments, say fetuses can feel pain starting at about 20 weeks, so
    anesthesia or analgesic should be administered to eliminate or
    alleviate organic pain to the unborn child. But scientists have
    rejected the fetal pain claim, saying there is no conclusive evidence to
    back up such legislation."

    So the evidence has to be conclusive???!!!! God forbid we should err
    on the side of caution, of avoiding pain. Where else in medical
    science does evidence of pain have to be conclusive? I had a wisdom
    tooth pulled with no anaesthetic and it didn't hurt. Does that mean
    people shouldn't get an anesthetic until it starts to hurt?

    The two examples this page gives: "Doctors can give the woman general anesthesia, which would make her unconscious, or a heavy dose of
    narcotics, neither of which were previously necessary for the
    procedure." But other webpages on the topic discuss anesthetizing only
    the fetus. How come this article doesn't mention that?


    It turns out for a while there was talk about using anesthesia on the
    fetus to keep it from feeling pain. All the web articles I found were
    from 7-5 years ago and nothing since. The two above are from this
    search: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=fetal+anethesia+during+abortions

    don't think many people would argue for the right to abort an 8 or 9-month >old fetus that can exist outside the womb. Most people would rightly think >of that as murder. On the other hand, I suspect most (though clearly not >all) people would have no trouble with a woman taking a morning-after pill
    to abort an embryo just hours after conception. The real question is where >between 1-day and 9-months does a human life actually begin. That is the

    Great. Here you say *a* human life. You and I may be the only ones!

    real issue in the abortion debate which unfortunately gets lost in all the >debate about reproductive rights and privacy.

    The whole term reproductive rights is backwards. They are talking about
    non- or anti-reproductive rights.

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to rick@nospam.com on Fri Jan 6 08:19:43 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:13:58 -0800 (PST), "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:


    The Galt quote (which, by the way, is actually a reworked version of the >earlier and somewhat similar quote by Howard Roark) does not address the
    real issue in the abortion debate which is when does human life begin. I

    I don't understand why everyone says this is the question. The answer
    seems obvious. Human life began long ago, 10's of thousands of years
    ago, and has continued without interruption ever since.

    A more relevant question seems to be, When does a life, a specific human
    life, begin? But I have never seen that question asked. It's always
    the way you just wrote it, except below you wrote it the way I would
    have!

    It seems to me a particular human life begins the moment after the sperm combines with the egg. But I wouldn't call killing it then murder. I
    myself don't have a problem with abortion until it's old enough to feel
    pain. AFAICT from google, this was never discussed until 7 years ago.
    No one seems to have talked about it before 7 years ago and since then,
    people rely on doctors to tell them about what is possible.

    I don't know how old a fetus has to be to feel pain, but the arguments
    I've seen that they don't, don't convince me.

    https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html
    'According to a statement from ACOG, a fetus's brain and nervous system
    "do not have the capacity to process, recognize or feel pain during
    the."' This reminds me of when they thought they could determine
    intelligence from the shape of one's skull. Since we don't know that
    much about how thinking works or how pain works, I don't think we can
    know how much development it takes for someone to feel pain. Their own statement clearly implies the fetus has a brain and a nervous system.
    How do they know what it can and can't do? Even if it's as primitive as
    2 tin cans tied together with a string, that works too.

    "Unlike with blood pressure or body temperature, for example, there's no definitive way to measure pain, Davis said. People do have ways of communicating how much pain they're feeling; for example, doctors often
    ask people to rate their pain on a scale of 1 to 10. But the experience
    of pain is fundamentally subjective, Davis said. In other words, what
    might be very painful to one person may cause very little pain to
    someone else." I don't think I'm just guessing that being torn apart,
    limb by limb, as some abortions are done, is painful, and substantially painful, to anyone of any age who can feel pain.

    https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/your-baby/fetal-development-week-by-week_10406730
    This seems like an apolitical, neutral page. I hope you will find it interesting, even if you find it disconcerting. I didn't write it.

    "12 weeks This week your baby's reflexes kick in: Their fingers will
    soon begin to open and close, toes will curl, and their mouth will make
    sucking movements, although you won't feel their movements quite yet.
    Your baby is the size of a lime."
    If it has reflexes, are its nerves not working?
    Maybe not, so "14 weeks Your baby's brain impulses have begun to fire
    and they're using their facial muscles. Their kidneys are working now,
    too. If you have an ultrasound, you may even see them sucking their
    thumb. Your baby is the size of a lemon." It says, Your baby's brain
    impulses have begun to fire.
    "15 weeks Your baby's eyelids are still fused shut, but they can
    sense light. If you shine a flashlight on your tummy, they'll move away
    from the beam. Ultrasounds done this week may reveal your baby's sex.
    Your baby is the size of an apple."
    "19 weeks Your baby's senses smell, vision, touch, taste and
    hearing are developing and they may be able to hear your voice. Talk,
    sing or read out loud to them, if you feel like it. Your baby is the
    size of an heirloom tomato."
    All these are 19 weeks or earlier, yet the url above says "however,
    doctors groups and other critics of the law argue that a fetus cannot
    feel pain at 20 weeks gestational age.... "The science shows that based
    on gestational age, the fetus is not capable of feeling pain until the
    third trimester," said Kate Connors, a spokesperson for ACOG. The third trimester begins at about 27 weeks of pregnancy." so it can do all
    those things involving sensory nerves listed above before 20 weeks but
    it can't feel pain until 27 weeks. I don't believe it. I'm not
    suggesting banning the abortions, just giving a pain killer.

    Or an even stronger, more insulting version:
    "This Law Just Took Abortion Pseudoscience to a New Low" https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/utah-will-now-force-doctors-anesthetize-fetuses-during-later-abortions/
    "Supporters of the new law, called the Protecting Unborn Children
    Amendments, say fetuses can feel pain starting at about 20 weeks, so
    anesthesia or analgesic should be administered to eliminate or
    alleviate organic pain to the unborn child. But scientists have
    rejected the fetal pain claim, saying there is no conclusive evidence to
    back up such legislation."

    So the evidence has to be conclusive???!!!! Gosh forbid we should
    err on the side of caution, of avoiding pain. Where else in medical
    science does evidence of pain have to be conclusive? I had a wisdom
    tooth pulled with no anaesthetic and it didn't hurt. Does that mean
    people shouldn't get an anesthetic until it starts to hurt?

    The two examples this page gives: "Doctors can give the woman general anesthesia, which would make her unconscious, or a heavy dose of
    narcotics, neither of which were previously necessary for the
    procedure." But other webpages on the topic discuss anesthetizing only
    the fetus. How come this article doesn't mention that?


    It turns out for a while there was talk about using anesthesia on the
    fetus to keep it from feeling pain. All the web articles I found were
    from 7-5 years ago and nothing since. The two above are from this
    search: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=fetal+anethesia+during+abortions

    don't think many people would argue for the right to abort an 8 or 9-month >old fetus that can exist outside the womb. Most people would rightly think >of that as murder. On the other hand, I suspect most (though clearly not >all) people would have no trouble with a woman taking a morning-after pill
    to abort an embryo just hours after conception. The real question is where >between 1-day and 9-months does a human life actually begin. That is the

    Great. Here you say *A* human life. You and I may be the only ones!

    real issue in the abortion debate which unfortunately gets lost in all the >debate about reproductive rights and privacy.

    The whole term reproductive rights is backwards. They are talking about
    non- or anti-reproductive rights.

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to micky on Fri Jan 6 12:13:40 2023
    On 1/6/2023 8:20 AM, micky wrote:
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 5 Jan 2023 20:07:35 -0800 (PST), Barry
    Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:

    On 1/5/2023 12:38 PM, RichD wrote:
    On January 4, Barry Gold wrote:
    As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in the >>>> John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never >>>> live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live
    for mine."

    um, how does that quote relate to abortion?
    Those who would ban abortion are forcing the woman to (at least
    partially) live her life for the sake of the fetus. I consider this a
    violation of her basic rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
    happiness".

    Does that clause, from the DOI, have any legal standing? I wish it did
    but I didn't think so.

    My feeling is that, in a free country, a person should be allowed to do anything that doesn't hurt someone else, and thus I think the right to interracial and homosexusal sexual relations and birth control doesn't
    depend on a right to privacy, only a right to freedom. -- Abortion on
    the other hand does affect someone else.

    Yes, but that someone else is, in effect, a trespasser.

    Note that even if you invite someone into your home, you still have the
    right to tell them to leave. Even if it's negative 40 with a blizzard
    and 40MPH winds outside. A short delay, e.g., to arrange for transport,
    is reasonable, but several months is not.


    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to micky on Fri Jan 6 12:15:21 2023
    "micky" wrote in message news:ov7frh55d0cunrorfnj20h5da7j97bj2m4@4ax.com...

    In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:13:58 -0800 (PST), "Rick" ><rick@nospam.com> wrote:


    The Galt quote (which, by the way, is actually a reworked version of the >>earlier and somewhat similar quote by Howard Roark) does not address the >>real issue in the abortion debate which is when does human life begin. I

    I don't understand why everyone says this is the question. The answer
    seems obvious. Human life began long ago, 10's of thousands of years
    ago, and has continued without interruption ever since.

    A more relevant question seems to be, When does a life, a specific human >life, begin? But I have never seen that question asked. It's always
    the way you just wrote it, except below you wrote it the way I would
    have!


    I disagree. I think when you ask "When does life begin", most people would interpret this as a general question similar to "When does puberty begin" or "When does middle age begin". And yes, it is short-hand for "When does a
    life begin". Your response of 10s of thousands of years ago is an answer
    to the question of "When did life begin."



    It seems to me a particular human life begins the moment after the sperm >combines with the egg. But I wouldn't call killing it then murder. I >myself don't have a problem with abortion until it's old enough to feel
    pain. AFAICT from google, this was never discussed until 7 years ago.
    No one seems to have talked about it before 7 years ago and since then, >people rely on doctors to tell them about what is possible.


    That's like saying it's okay to kill someone as long as they don't feel any pain. The issue isn't what the person feels - it's whether the person is a person. I don't know the precise answer to that, but as I said in my other post, it is the job of law-makers to come up with the best and most general answer they can to when a person becomes a person, i.e., when life (or a
    life) begins. For me the most general answer is to say that a person has likely begun significant brain activity by sometime in the second trimester.




    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 6 14:32:52 2023
    According to Rick <rick@nospam.com>:
    I don't think it is far afield at all. The law constantly has to wrestle >with issues like this. A similar example is at what point should you >consider a person to legally be an adult. ...

    Right, and the answer is "it depends". It's one answer if you want to
    drive a car, another if you want to sign a contract, another if you
    want to get married, another if you want to leave school, another if
    you want to buy booze, another if you want to buy tobacco, and I'm
    sure there are a dozen others. Legislatures have figured out that it
    would be stupid to make a rule that there is a single moment before
    which you are not an adult and after which you are.

    Abortion is no different. Legislators again have to use the best >information they can to come up with a reasonable definition of when life >begins, ...

    Sorry, you're assuming your conclusions again. Unless you mean five
    billion years ago when the first proto-bacterium divided, "when life
    begins" is a meaningless phrase, no matter how much some forced birth
    advocates might wish otherwise.

    As I said in the message you quoted, an embryo or fetus slowly becomes
    more like a person in various ways as it develops. I can think of a
    lot of bad reasons why people might want to impose an arbitrary fixed
    time after which a woman loses control of her bodily autononomy, but
    no good ones.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Fri Jan 6 14:32:16 2023
    "Barry Gold" wrote in message news:tp9lvj$2c9ks$13@dont-email.me...

    On 1/6/2023 8:20 AM, micky wrote:
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 5 Jan 2023 20:07:35 -0800 (PST), Barry
    Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:

    On 1/5/2023 12:38 PM, RichD wrote:
    On January 4, Barry Gold wrote:
    As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in >>>>> the
    John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will
    never
    live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live >>>>> for mine."

    um, how does that quote relate to abortion?
    Those who would ban abortion are forcing the woman to (at least
    partially) live her life for the sake of the fetus. I consider this a
    violation of her basic rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
    happiness".

    Does that clause, from the DOI, have any legal standing? I wish it did
    but I didn't think so.

    My feeling is that, in a free country, a person should be allowed to do
    anything that doesn't hurt someone else, and thus I think the right to
    interracial and homosexusal sexual relations and birth control doesn't
    depend on a right to privacy, only a right to freedom. -- Abortion on
    the other hand does affect someone else.

    Yes, but that someone else is, in effect, a trespasser.

    Note that even if you invite someone into your home, you still have the
    right to tell them to leave. Even if it's negative 40 with a blizzard and >40MPH winds outside. A short delay, e.g., to arrange for transport, is >reasonable, but several months is not.



    By that logic, you should be allowed to tell one of your kids to leave the house after several months because you're tired of them. You obviously
    can't do that unless you do it in a way that does not jeopardize their life
    and well-being (e.g., adoption, having a family member agree to take them
    in, etc.).

    Abortion is no different if you assume the "trespasser" is an actual life
    form. You can't ask this being to leave without assuring its life and well-being are maintained, which in the context of current technology is not yet feasible for most embryos until they are relatively late-term.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Fri Jan 6 14:30:42 2023
    On January 5, Barry Gold wrote:
    As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in the >>> John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never
    live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live
    for mine."

    um, how does that quote relate to abortion?

    Those who would ban abortion are forcing the woman to (at least
    partially) live her life for the sake of the fetus. I consider this a violation of her basic rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

    oh
    So if she carries to term, then she deserves the right to toss
    the kid in a dumpster on his birthday.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to John Levine on Fri Jan 6 16:14:57 2023
    "John Levine" wrote in message news:tpa2ub$2bl5$1@gal.iecc.com...

    According to Rick <rick@nospam.com>:
    I don't think it is far afield at all. The law constantly has to wrestle >>with issues like this. A similar example is at what point should you >>consider a person to legally be an adult. ...

    Right, and the answer is "it depends". It's one answer if you want to
    drive a car, another if you want to sign a contract, another if you
    want to get married, another if you want to leave school, another if
    you want to buy booze, another if you want to buy tobacco, and I'm
    sure there are a dozen others. Legislatures have figured out that it
    would be stupid to make a rule that there is a single moment before
    which you are not an adult and after which you are.

    Abortion is no different. Legislators again have to use the best >>information they can to come up with a reasonable definition of when life >>begins, ...

    Sorry, you're assuming your conclusions again. Unless you mean five
    billion years ago when the first proto-bacterium divided, "when life
    begins" is a meaningless phrase, no matter how much some forced birth >advocates might wish otherwise.


    It's not meaningless. Virtually everyone agrees that at some point an
    embryo becomes a life. No one disputes that a 9-month old fetus about to
    come out is indeed alive. Laws are all about protecting the rights of
    living people, so of course understanding when a person actually becomes a living person is pretty critical. If you don't like the phrase "when life begins" just substitute it for the phrase "when an embryo or fetus becomes a person with legal rights". It's trying to figure out when that state begins that is difficult, and I would again argue it is no different than trying to determine when someone is old enough to live as an adult (i.e., without an adult guardian).

    As I said in the message you quoted, an embryo or fetus slowly becomes
    more like a person in various ways as it develops. I can think of a
    lot of bad reasons why people might want to impose an arbitrary fixed
    time after which a woman loses control of her bodily autononomy, but
    no good ones.


    Conceptually this is no different than the reverse situation of imposing an arbitrary fixed period after which parents are no longer burdened with the responsibility of caring for their kids. You have to set a legal age where
    a child becomes an adult and is no longer bound legally to their parents,
    and in the same way, you have to set a legal age where an embryo/fetus
    legally becomes a person.


    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 7 22:49:59 2023
    According to Rick <rick@nospam.com>:
    It's not meaningless. Virtually everyone agrees that at some point an
    embryo becomes a life.

    I may have said this a few times before, but you keep assuming your conclusions.

    While it may well be true that people you know "agree that at some
    point an embryo becomes a life" it's not true in general, and more to
    the point, even if it were true, which it is not, it is a useless
    distinction. Maybe there is a point where a particular fetus is
    50.0001% like a person, but we do not know when that point is, and it
    is useless to try and identify it for any sort of medical or legal distinctions.

    in the same way, you have to set a legal age where an embryo/fetus legally becomes a person.

    That's easy: no, you don't.

    Even the people who claim that there is such a point don't really
    believe it. A few months ago there was a news report about a pregnant
    woman in a state with a new fetal personhood law who was stopped for
    driving solo in a carpool lane. She argued that under state law there
    were two people in the car, the fetus and her. The response from the
    cops and the court was "don't be ridiculous." And of course, it was
    indeed ridiculous, to claim that you can pass a law that turns a fetus
    of unknown age, status, and viability, into a person.

    Really, I understand why some people would prefer there were such a
    magic moment, since it would make a lot of arguments simpler,
    particularly arguments about when a woman loses control over her own
    body, but sometimes it is a very bad idea to give peoplw what they want.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to John Levine" on Sun Jan 8 21:20:13 2023
    John Levine" wrote in message news:tpda5o$2ueu$1@gal.iecc.com...

    According to Rick <rick@nospam.com>:
    It's not meaningless. Virtually everyone agrees that at some point an >>embryo becomes a life.

    I may have said this a few times before, but you keep assuming your >conclusions.

    While it may well be true that people you know "agree that at some
    point an embryo becomes a life" it's not true in general, and more to
    the point, even if it were true, which it is not, it is a useless >distinction. Maybe there is a point where a particular fetus is
    50.0001% like a person, but we do not know when that point is, and it
    is useless to try and identify it for any sort of medical or legal >distinctions.


    I'm sure if you surveyed 100 random people and asked them if a 9-month old fetus about to be born is a life, you would get most people saying yes. A 9-month old fetus about to be born has full brain function and is virtually
    no different from the baby that is born a few moments later. So yes, a baby about to be born is a life and it's hard for me to envision anyone saying otherwise. In the same way, I think a fetus that has been in the womb 8 1/2 months is a life and I think most people would agree with this. Maybe the problem here is terminology. An 8 1/2 old fetus can exist on its own and
    has all the functions of a living being. If it's not a life, than call it
    by whatever term you want, but I do think most people would agree this being
    is alive in the scientific sense and in every other sense. I also think - and you can disagree with me all you want on this - that is you ask 100
    random people if they think it is right or should be legal for a woman to
    abort an 8 1/2 or 9-month old fetus except in the case where medical doctors agree it is necessary to save the woman's life, a majority would say no. So
    my only point is that if most people think is wrong to abort an 8 1/2 or 9-month old fetus because you are essentially murdering a living person at
    that point, how far back in the cycle does it become ok.


    in the same way, you have to set a legal age where an embryo/fetus legally >>becomes a person.

    That's easy: no, you don't.


    Then you are basically saying that it should be perfectly legal for a woman
    to abort a healthy baby that is about to be born shortly before giving birth because that baby is not yet a person. Again, I think most people would disagree with you on that. People will disagree on the age where it is okay
    to kill an embryo or fetus, but I do not know anyone who says it is okay to kill an 8 1/2 or 9-month old fetus unless it is the rare case where the
    mother will die otherwise. In those cases, the baby would probably just be delivered early.


    Even the people who claim that there is such a point don't really
    believe it. A few months ago there was a news report about a pregnant
    woman in a state with a new fetal personhood law who was stopped for
    driving solo in a carpool lane. She argued that under state law there
    were two people in the car, the fetus and her. The response from the
    cops and the court was "don't be ridiculous." And of course, it was

    Clearly the intent of those laws is to have passengers in seats, which isn't the case here. The goal is to have more passengers in fewer cars to reduce the overall number of cars on the road. A woman with an unborn child inside
    of her is doing nothing to further that goal.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to It appears that Rick on Mon Jan 9 16:57:00 2023
    It appears that Rick <rick@nospam.com> said:
    I may have said this a few times before, but you keep assuming your >>conclusions.

    I'm sure if you ....

    [[ yet more assuming conclusions here, not worth repeating ]]

    Then you are basically saying that it should be perfectly legal for a woman >to abort a healthy baby that is about to be born shortly before giving birth >because that baby is not yet a person. ...

    Wow, all these straw men are going to be a fire hazard.

    If the mother to be is an 11 year old girl who was raped by her uncle,
    and her body is so small and so frail that she would bleed to death if
    she tried to deliver even by C-section, in that horrible case, of
    course it should be legal and it has nothing to do with whether the
    fetus "is a person". I hope the claim isn't that the fetus is a person
    and the girl isn't so the fetus wins.

    I'm not saying there should be no rules at all, but it is a cruel
    fantasy to try to draw bright lines in a world where in fact
    everything is grey. Setting a single point where a fetus "is a
    person", or to inject theology and call it "a life" just dehumanizes
    women and their families and the often very difficult choices they
    have to make.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to John Levine on Mon Jan 9 19:21:09 2023
    "John Levine" wrote in message news:tphq2l$1p5i$1@gal.iecc.com...

    It appears that Rick <rick@nospam.com> said:
    I may have said this a few times before, but you keep assuming your >>>conclusions.

    I'm sure if you ....

    [[ yet more assuming conclusions here, not worth repeating ]]

    Then you are basically saying that it should be perfectly legal for a
    woman
    to abort a healthy baby that is about to be born shortly before giving >>birth
    because that baby is not yet a person. ...

    Wow, all these straw men are going to be a fire hazard.

    If the mother to be is an 11 year old girl who was raped by her uncle,
    and her body is so small and so frail that she would bleed to death if
    she tried to deliver even by C-section, in that horrible case, of
    course it should be legal and it has nothing to do with whether the
    fetus "is a person". I hope the claim isn't that the fetus is a person
    and the girl isn't so the fetus wins.


    But that's not what I said. I clearly said that most people would say it is wrong to abort an 8 1/2 month or 9-month old fetus unless it were necessary
    to protect the health of the mother. In your example, that would clearly be the case.

    I'm not saying there should be no rules at all, but it is a cruel
    fantasy to try to draw bright lines in a world where in fact
    everything is grey. Setting a single point where a fetus "is a
    person", or to inject theology and call it "a life" just dehumanizes
    women and their families and the often very difficult choices they
    have to make.


    Again, you are misquoting me. I never mentioned theology and I am in fact
    not a religious person. Theology is the furthest point from my mind and I disagree with anyone who says abortion should be banned on religious
    grounds. This has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with the law needing to define some age where a developing embryo/fetus has developed
    enough brain function to be called a living entity deserving of protection.
    And yes, it is impossible to be overly precise because different brains
    develop differently. But we have to do the best we can with this based on science and medicine. It is conceptually no different than defining an arbitrary age in law when a person can live independently without a
    guardian.
    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Tue Jan 10 08:51:57 2023
    On 1/10/2023 8:41 AM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
    ...

    We have had definitions. At common law a fetus wasn't considered a
    "person" until it was born and started breathing. Under Roe v. Wade
    a fetus got rights separate from its mother's when it was able to
    life on its own outside the mother's womb. These days religious
    zealots and others on the right want to say that a fetus has superior
    rights to those of the mother from the moment it is conceived. That
    position is clearly based on religious doctrine, makes no common
    sense and can be oppressive and even deadly to women.

    ....

    The law is inconsistent.

    People have been convicted of murdering a fetus. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Laci_Peterson

    People can vote at 18 but can't be trusted with alcohol until 21.
    Similar laws for some guns.

    California has special driving rules for people younger than 18 and the
    same for NYC. When I was growing up in NYC, I was able to drive and go
    to a bar at 18 :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Rick on Tue Jan 10 08:41:14 2023
    "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

    I'm not saying there should be no rules at all, but it is a cruel
    fantasy to try to draw bright lines in a world where in fact
    everything is grey. Setting a single point where a fetus "is a
    person", or to inject theology and call it "a life" just
    dehumanizes women and their families and the often very difficult
    choices they have to make.

    Again, you are misquoting me. I never mentioned theology and I am
    in fact not a religious person. Theology is the furthest point
    from my mind and I disagree with anyone who says abortion should
    be banned on religious grounds. This has nothing to do with
    religion. This has to do with the law needing to define some age
    where a developing embryo/fetus has developed enough brain
    function to be called a living entity deserving of protection. And
    yes, it is impossible to be overly precise because different
    brains develop differently. But we have to do the best we can
    with this based on science and medicine. It is conceptually no
    different than defining an arbitrary age in law when a person can
    live independently without a guardian.

    We have had definitions. At common law a fetus wasn't considered a
    "person" until it was born and started breathing. Under Roe v. Wade
    a fetus got rights separate from its mother's when it was able to
    life on its own outside the mother's womb. These days religious
    zealots and others on the right want to say that a fetus has superior
    rights to those of the mother from the moment it is conceived. That
    position is clearly based on religious doctrine, makes no common
    sense and can be oppressive and even deadly to women.

    It's like the Taliban now. They aren't letting women work or get
    educated, and at the same time not allowing women to be treated by
    male doctors. So women have no right - or even ability to get - to
    medical attention. It seems far away, but we're getting
    uncomfortably close to that outselves.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 10 15:03:10 2023
    "Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message news:XnsAF8848F911F36spamtraplexregiacom@130.133.4.11...

    "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

    I'm not saying there should be no rules at all, but it is a cruel
    fantasy to try to draw bright lines in a world where in fact
    everything is grey. Setting a single point where a fetus "is a
    person", or to inject theology and call it "a life" just
    dehumanizes women and their families and the often very difficult
    choices they have to make.

    Again, you are misquoting me. I never mentioned theology and I am
    in fact not a religious person. Theology is the furthest point
    from my mind and I disagree with anyone who says abortion should
    be banned on religious grounds. This has nothing to do with
    religion. This has to do with the law needing to define some age
    where a developing embryo/fetus has developed enough brain
    function to be called a living entity deserving of protection. And
    yes, it is impossible to be overly precise because different
    brains develop differently. But we have to do the best we can
    with this based on science and medicine. It is conceptually no
    different than defining an arbitrary age in law when a person can
    live independently without a guardian.

    We have had definitions. At common law a fetus wasn't considered a
    "person" until it was born and started breathing. Under Roe v. Wade
    a fetus got rights separate from its mother's when it was able to
    life on its own outside the mother's womb. These days religious
    zealots and others on the right want to say that a fetus has superior
    rights to those of the mother from the moment it is conceived. That
    position is clearly based on religious doctrine, makes no common
    sense and can be oppressive and even deadly to women.


    Right - and for me, there is no issue that a newly formed embryo is not a person and should not have any rights. I don't accept the religious
    argument and, as I said, I am not personally religious. My issue is at the other end - when the embryo is becoming fully formed in the womb and has
    brain function. I maintain my view that most people would not agree that
    an 8 or 9-month old fetus with full brain function should be protected from
    an abortion unless to save the mother's life. I believe late term babies in the womb are people and need to be protected under the law. My issue is how far back in the cycle do we give the unborn child the right to not be
    aborted. Just as you have to pick a somewhat arbitrary age for living as
    an adult without a guardian (18 seems reasonable), I think lawmakers have a responsibility to come up with some reasonable age for when a fetus develops the right not to be aborted.


    It's like the Taliban now. They aren't letting women work or get
    educated, and at the same time not allowing women to be treated by
    male doctors. So women have no right - or even ability to get - to
    medical attention. It seems far away, but we're getting
    uncomfortably close to that outselves.


    Let's hope we don't get to that extreme. To me, protecting women's rights does not mean ignoring the very real definitional issue of when the unborn child's rights begin.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Rick on Tue Jan 10 21:25:07 2023
    "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:
    "Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote
    "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

    I'm not saying there should be no rules at all, but it is a
    cruel fantasy to try to draw bright lines in a world where in
    fact everything is grey. Setting a single point where a fetus
    "is a person", or to inject theology and call it "a life" just >>>>dehumanizes women and their families and the often very
    difficult choices they have to make.

    Again, you are misquoting me. I never mentioned theology and I
    am in fact not a religious person. Theology is the furthest
    point from my mind and I disagree with anyone who says abortion
    should be banned on religious grounds. This has nothing to do
    with religion. This has to do with the law needing to define
    some age where a developing embryo/fetus has developed enough
    brain function to be called a living entity deserving of
    protection. And yes, it is impossible to be overly precise
    because different brains develop differently. But we have to do
    the best we can with this based on science and medicine. It is
    conceptually no different than defining an arbitrary age in law
    when a person can live independently without a guardian.

    We have had definitions. At common law a fetus wasn't considered
    a "person" until it was born and started breathing. Under Roe v.
    Wade a fetus got rights separate from its mother's when it was
    able to life on its own outside the mother's womb. These days
    religious zealots and others on the right want to say that a fetus
    has superior rights to those of the mother from the moment it is
    conceived. That position is clearly based on religious doctrine,
    makes no common sense and can be oppressive and even deadly to
    women.


    Right - and for me, there is no issue that a newly formed embryo
    is not a person and should not have any rights. I don't accept
    the religious argument and, as I said, I am not personally
    religious. My issue is at the other end - when the embryo is
    becoming fully formed in the womb and has brain function. I
    maintain my view that most people would not agree that an 8 or
    9-month old fetus with full brain function should be protected
    from an abortion unless to save the mother's life. I believe late
    term babies in the womb are people and need to be protected under
    the law. My issue is how far back in the cycle do we give the
    unborn child the right to not be aborted. Just as you have to
    pick a somewhat arbitrary age for living as an adult without a
    guardian (18 seems reasonable), I think lawmakers have a
    responsibility to come up with some reasonable age for when a
    fetus develops the right not to be aborted.

    The brain stem forms about 12 weeks - at the end of the first
    trimester, when Roe v. Wade said states could, up to a point,
    regulate abortion. So that was, seems to me, a pretty reasonable
    holding

    It's like the Taliban now. They aren't letting women work or get
    educated, and at the same time not allowing women to be treated by
    male doctors. So women have no right - or even ability to get -
    to medical attention. It seems far away, but we're getting
    uncomfortably close to that outselves.


    Let's hope we don't get to that extreme. To me, protecting
    women's rights does not mean ignoring the very real definitional
    issue of when the unborn child's rights begin.

    --





    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 10 21:22:59 2023
    ....I maintain my view that most people would not agree that
    an 8 or 9-month old fetus with full brain function should be protected from >an abortion unless to save the mother's life. >


    Correction - I meant to say that most people would not DISAGREE that an 8 or 9-month old fetus with full brain function should be protected from an
    abortion unless to save the mother's life.


    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Rick on Wed Jan 11 06:58:16 2023
    On 1/10/2023 3:03 PM, Rick wrote:
    Let's hope we don't get to that extreme.   To me, protecting women's
    rights does not mean ignoring the very real definitional issue of when
    the unborn child's rights begin.

    Okay. For the sake of argument, let us assume that at some point (choose
    one), the unborn child has the same right to life as a born person.

    As a born person, do I have the right to demand that somebody else
    provide me with food? No. It is up to me to negotiate for food (usually
    by paying for it with money I earned doing something that somebody else
    finds useful/amusing/whatever).

    Do I have a right to housing? No. It is up to me to buy or rent housing,
    or sleep on the streets with all the disadvantages that arise therefrom.

    Do I have a right to clothing? No. See food above.

    Do I have a right to water? No. See food above, except that in some
    areas you can find free drinking fountains, or waterways running through publicly accessible land.

    Why, then, should a woman be required to provide food, housing, etc. to
    the unborn child within her? Because she had sex? This brings us back to
    the "if you didn't want a baby, you shouldn't have let a male put his
    penis in you." Never mind that those same states do not provide any sex education except "abstinence only", which has been proven not to work.
    Not to mention rape etc.

    Would you care to try again?

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)