I mean, acknowledging a group of people as persons but still not giving them rights does have a certain tradition on the right...

>I mean, acknowledging a group of people as 2/3rds of a person but still not giving them rights does have a certain tradition on the right...

A bit less than that, as I recall it was 3/5.

Ooof - I messed that one up.

this whole thread should be nuked and moved to Reddit.

This has nothing to do with anything related to Hacker News.

Is your left arm your property or your body?

Does your left arm have different DNA?

What is more likely?

“The left” view fetuses as part of the woman’s body or “the left” view fetuses as slaves.

Does DNA somehow make the bad faith “slave” take more palatable?

I always thought Abraham Lincoln was on the right and slave owners on the left, but maybe everything I read in the history books was a lie and I am also wrong.

The fetus lacks mobility. For his or her purposes, he is always detained by the mother.

¿Please stop calling it a "fucking fetus"? You are offending not only me and people I care for, but also yourself.

I’m not sure offense works in a way where you can decide someone else is offended on their behalf

Your presumption offends me!

That’s why I was careful to couch it in “I’m not sure”, always open to being corrected when I’m wrong

No?

> You are offending not only me and people I care for

This is really a poor justification for suppressing speech. There will always be someone who is offended.

Is "fucking fetus" speech that should be protected?

yes "fucking fetus" should be, and is, "fucking protected" speech.

Of course. Why should it be suppressed? Profanity is a natural part of language.

I'm offended you think that I'd be offended /s

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit#Wilhoit's_l...

This has nothing whatever to do with what actual self-identified conservatives believe.

No, they are just the real world side-effects of whatever fantasies they believe.

The term 'conservative' is pretty broad, so for sure some will not identify with this. But I know more than a few that would, after carefully considering the implications of the claim, affirm it to be pretty accurate. They're actually okay with it.

There's a difference between what conservatives profess to believe and what those stated beliefs, plus their actions, say about their worldview.

Complete failure to understand your political opponent's viewpoint.

So elucidate on it, please. I’m dying to understand my political opponents viewpoint.

Came here to say the same thing!

Emotional outburst based on nothing. Want to know how I know your political stance?

I often see people saying this to someone on the more leftward side of things.

I find it funny considering how many rightwingers throw constant tantrums and emotional fits over “nothing”.

And, for the record, it’s not really over “nothing”. I have a daughter who has just recently hit puberty and is nearing the age for dating etc and I get to live in a dystopian nightmare where I might not be able to get her an abortion if she gets raped or for any other reason. And might try having her biorhythms tracked to make sure nothing naughty is happening.

Because the fucking boomers, who had reproductive protections for essentially their entire reproductive lifespans, have managed to fuck over the younger generations.

So yes. This crap gets me heated. But feel free to sit there and act the high n mighty because you talk to everyone in a calm, rational voice, and operate purely on insufferably impenetrable logic and the rest of us are just emotional morons.

> might try having her biorhythms tracked to make sure nothing naughty is happening

Naughty? Who are you to judge whatever your daughter chooses to do as "naughty"? Doesn't she get to choose freely what to do with her body?

You're being disingenuous. It's clear they were referring to the viewpoint held by those doing the monitoring.

Maybe. That's not how it reads to me: "I have a daughter ... and I get to live ... And [implied I] might try ..."

But if I misinterpreted the comment, I apologize.

He is likely referring to the period tracking Florida is trying to implement for female athletes in public schools

Among other things.

Are you shitting me right now? Holy hell, they have GOT to start teaching reading comprehension again.

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and using HN for flamewar and ideological battle. Those things aren't allowed here, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are.

If it were just a matter of one thread I'd post a warning instead of a ban, but you've been making a habit of it in other threads and that's not cool at all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> They can't claim a fucking fetus is a person and then not give it rights.

Of course they can, we do it all the time. Children, for example, are people and they have very limited rights (especially in the area of freedom of movement).

Children so have rights. Some of them are restricted. But even then you wouldn’t throw a child into prison for a crime committed by their parents.

If the child would die without the parent you would. Maybe not for petty crimes, but if the parent is a murderer they need to be in prison. If they are in prison, the fetus needs to be in prison to escape death.

No, we don't do that. Most children would die without some kind of care, but we don't put them in prison if their parents are criminals. We make sure they are cared for by someone else.

(The systems for that are in terrible shape too, but that's a separate issue.)

Right. We place them with other adults such as grandparents, aunts/uncles, foster care, etc. I fail to see how this would work for fetuses.

> Children do have rights. Some of them are restricted.

Exactly, therefore the claim in OP that "They can't claim a fucking fetus is a person and then not give it rights." isn't really sound. Our legal systems already claim that some beings (children in this example) are persons but that they aren't entitled to the full range of rights that adults enjoy.

Please do note that I'm not trying to argue any related issues (such as the legality of abortions), just that claim made by OP.

Rights come with responsibility. If you can fend for yourself then you can probably do as you please even as a child. However if you need someone to feed you and protect you then surely you concede some rights.

"Oh, it's all right, my son fends for himself during the seasons the snow's not on the ground. That's why he wasn't in class the last few months."

My mother detained me for 9 months, too. I had 0 say in the matter. I was held captive.

It works both ways: you can't claim that a fetus is not a person and then argue that it is being illegally detained.

Both arguments are the same, why do you only see one as ridiculous?

You can, however, claim that a fetus is not a person and then argue that the fetus is being illegally detained according to the opposing side's logic.

That doesn't seem any different to claiming that if a fetus is not a person according to the opposing sides logic, then there is no point in listening to their further arguments about detainment.

Really, it's ridiculous logic from both sides, I don't see where one side has an argument that is not conflicted by that sides previous assertions.

Presumably because this is in Florida, where the prevailing viewpoint is that a fetus is well past the point where it is to be regarded as a person.

The fetus is confined to the whom in any case, so it makes no difference to the fetus if the whom is in prison or not.

It does if there is not adequate care

Since the state is keeping the mother imprisoned it should provide adequate care

Who are "they"? Which rights are "they" trying to deny?

I am pro-life from conception, and believe the "fucking fetus" to be a human being with dignity and worth.

The physical location of the mother doesn't make any difference to the child's rights. The baby is stuck inside the mother's womb either way. However, if the police are preventing the mother and her child from receiving needed medical care, that is a violation of the child's rights! The lawyers are right to complain in such a case.

The stress of being in jail has a negative impact on the fetuses development. It's shameful that we aren't prioritizing the well being of the next generation. It's also against the state's interest to do anything that would hurt their future taxable income.

Possibly. Unfortunately, the state has to balance that risk against the risk that the murderer mother may commit additional crimes if freed. There is no perfect solution

> There is no perfect solution

It is difficult to square that statement with "pro-life from conception" as mentioned earlier. On the one hand you recognize the need for nuance, and in the other case not.

The life of the child is valuable. The lives of people on the street (which would be endangered by letting a suspected murderer go free) are also valuable. We should do all we can to protect as many lives as we can. (I can accept abortion when the life of the mother is at risk.)

Why punish the fetus for the mother’s alleged crime ?

No punishment is occuring, the mother has not been tried or sentenced. She is being detained to keep others safe.

Even from a joint genetic property perspective the same outcome as yours would be reached.

The state has improperly seized that property and inhibits its conversion into a birthed human being that inherits all constitutional rights.

(this framework exists outside of the pro-life pro-choice false dilemma)

> The physical location of the mother doesn't make any difference to the child

Preposterous. Sleep, diet, activities, even socializing all impact the development of a fetus. These are the domains of choice to which free people are entitled, none of which are freely available in a cell.

It's not just "medical care" to which we're entitled. Even sunlight must be an option.

The state has to balance the interest that the child has in receiving adequate care, with the interest that outside society has in not having murderers walking freely in the street. Ideally, the state would provide the best care that it can inside the jail/prison.

Sure, but is the mother there for murder? Does this cost more than some alternative that’s “too soft”?

She is accused of murder.

  Harrell, 24, has been jailed without bond since July, when she was accused of fatally shooting another woman and charged with second-degree murder

So she's not even convicted yet, is that correct?

Sure, but what's your point?

Being accused of murder can lead to detainment, which naturally bears the risk of temporarily detaining innocent people. That's the tradeoff society has agreed to.

Yes, of course the state is balancing interests, where did I imply otherwise?

Here's the issue. If a fetus is a person, that person has the rights granted to them by the constitution. This includes:

* Right to an attorney to represent it and its needs. (6th Amendment)

* And the right to bring a Habeas Corpus suit before the court.

In short the argument is going to go like this:

Jail is a dangerous place. If the mother is killed, likely the fetus/person will be killed as well. Hence the Habeas plea.

I think if you are at all serious about fetuses attaining personhood status (with all the rights and privileges thereof), you would want the court to do something to protect the life of the fetus here, even if the court can't separate the mother from the fetus.

> I think if you are at all serious about fetuses attaining personhood status (with all the rights and privileges thereof), you would want the court to do something to protect the life of the fetus here, even if the court can't separate the mother from the fetus.

100%. The mother should be kept in good conditions, isolated from other inmates that might harm her child, with adequate medical care.

Like the women from Dallas who challenged that she wasn't driving alone in the car pool lane because she was pregnant.

Malicious Compliance. It opens a whole can of worms they weren't prepared for.

This assumes that they care about applying logic and consistency. There is little evidence that this is the case.

FACTS but forcing it into the courts is a good start

On the carpool lane case—the woman and her child are two different people, but combined they occupy only one of the car's seats, and the latter is more relevant to the purpose of HOV lanes.

> Malicious Compliance. It opens a whole can of worms they weren't prepared for.

Until reality hits and you get arrested/cited.

Personhood shouldn't be the only requirement to count towards HOV lane usage. For example, there's no disagreement in https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/04/end-of-the-roa... that there's enough people in the car, but that behavior is absolutely abusing the HOV lane.

I see no problem with pregnant women using the carpool lane. I certainly don't want them stuck on the freeway if they have to pee.

Really, I see it the same as any parent transporting their own kids. The real point of the carpool lane is to reduce the number of cars on the road by having multiple adults who are able to drive share a vehicle. Nonetheless we already make exceptions for other passengers who can't drive.

This doesn't make sense. A fetus doesn't have the capacity for autonomy or freedom of movement _yet_. Denying it life is not the same as acknowledging that it's currently confined out of biological necessity! It's dishonest to guarantee the 'right' to hear music to a deaf person who doesn't have the capacity to hear. The right doesn't make sense in the context, such a right would be nonsensical. However, the fetus does have the capacity to live, and to be born. A right to life makes sense.

This not the gotcha you think it is, for two reasons:

First, the mother is 8 months pregnant - there is virtually no developed country that allows abortion this late in the pregnancy. Unless you are for abortion right up to the point of birth, you are in the same dilemma as the pro-life people you rail against.

Second, for this to be a real legal issue you would need to demonstrate some sort of damages to the child. If the unborn child is safe and receiving adequate care, how are his rights materially affected by his mother being in jail? His amount of liberty is precisely what it was before.

  > First, the mother is 8 months pregnant - there is virtually no developed country that allows abortion this late in the pregnancy. 

You may be surprised to know that there are in fact several US States that allow abortion all the way up to birth with zero restrictions:[1] Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and of course D.C.

[1] - https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-polici...

I am well aware, which is why I used the qualifier of "virtually".

And yes, technically if you support abortion without restriction that you avoid the dilemma presented in this article, but then you have arguably much bigger ethical dilemmas to work through, which is why support for such policies is outside the norm for those who are pro-choice.

Nobody carries a fetus for 8 months and then decides to abort on a whim. Nobody. They only do it if it is medically necessary. Each late-term abortion is a very hard decision between patient and doctor. Denying necessary medical intervention is cruel and harmful. Patient and doctor should be left to it, as nothing about that decision gets better by getting the law involved as well. You know all of this.

Perhaps you didn't see what post I was replying to, but it would help in order to understand the context. The OP said "there is virtually no developed country that allows abortion this late in the pregnancy" and this is a common misunderstanding about abortion law, particularly in the US. Almost every single person that learns there are a number of states that allow elective (i.e. non-medically necessary) abortion up to the moment of birth, are blown away and don't believe it. But it's true.

Most people believe that if the life of the mother is in danger at any point, abortion should be available. Not everyone, but the vast majority. Most people believe that there needs to be a cut off at some point (generally after viability, but this varies) where non-medically necessary abortions should not be legal. If you take a poll of 100 people, how many would support a non-medically necessary abortion at 8 months? Not many. So then the question is, why are there states with zero restrictions that late in term?

As to your claim that "nobody" would abort that late in term unless medically necessary, we know that is categorically false. Hundreds of already born children are murdered by their parents every single year in the US, so it's inexcusable to give them legal cover to do it prior to birth when the child is viable.

What is the difference between an elective abortion at 8 months and just smothering the baby after its born?

* * *

You're right, they're not the same thing. I would imagine killing an infant yourself after it's born is a lot harder (and actually murder) than having a non-medically necessary later term abortion. And yet hundreds of women do it every year. If you think "literally nobody" has a non-medically necessary late term abortion, then you need to provide some evidence to back up such an absurd statement. It's legal in all those states for a reason.

If you say that it happens, you provide proof that it does: that's the way round that proof works. Do not shift the burden of proof. "prove the absence" is a well-known absurdity in general.

Your imaginings about infanticide are uninteresting, and I think wrong, but it also seems that you would rather pick nits about this insane comparison, so no.

  > Your imaginings about infanticide are uninteresting

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174580/

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.16...

There is actually a metric shit ton of research on infanticide, I'm not sure what would lead you to pretend it's not real.

Uninteresting distraction, since as pointed out above, it is unrelated to the topic at hand.

> I'm not sure what would lead you to pretend it's not real

Word games. Again: pointless distraction, dishonest, uninteresting.

Burden of proof remains on you.

> Nobody carries a fetus for 8 months and then decides to abort on a whim. Nobody.

I don't think that's literally true, but irrelevant. I, and most pro-life people I know support medical necessity as a valid exception to an otherwise general prohibition. Again, also irrelevant.

The question is, do you support the right to non-medically necessary abortions at 8 months, or not?

If you don't, then you are implicitly stating that the child has a right to life, and thus you are in the same (supposed) dilemma posed by this article as pro-life people.

> I don't think that's literally true, but irrelevant

What our disingenuous friend is ignoring is that if someone wanted to be rid of a fetus, why on earth would they wait 8 long hard months? Why endure late pregnancy for no reason? It would be easier to end it at 5 months, easier still at 3. And easier before then.

What exactly do you think of Mr Buttigieg 's comments above? He does mention this.

> I support medical necessity as a valid exception to an otherwise general prohibition.

And does the law concur? Are you invoking the Shirley exception? https://issuepedia.org/Shirley_exception/origin

> The question is, do you support the right to non-medically necessary abortions at 8 months, or not?

I think that this is a decision between patient and doctor, and nobody else. My ignorant view is not wanted, yours neither and especially not the law's. if you claim "medical necessity as a valid exception" then you actually don't disagree much.

As I said above: "Patient and doctor should be left to it, as nothing about that decision gets better by getting the law involved as well. Big government is not helpful in this case."

  > I think that this is a decision between patient and doctor, and nobody else. 

If it's non-medically necessary then what does a doctor have to do with the decision? That's the whole point.

This whole point doesn't even make sense. If there's no doctor or other qualified medic involved in the process, then by definition it's backstreet, outside of any medical or legal control and the question is moot.

Perhaps you're not aware of what a medically necessary abortion is then? It's precipitated when the pregnancy is causing a medical complication that is putting the life of the mother in danger. Just going to see an abortion doctor because you want to abort, does not make it medically necessary.

I urge you to read your own earlier comment and see if the two make sense to you when taken together.

There is a reason you're being vague and not answering directly.

There's nothing concrete to answer. Stop projecting.

It's very concrete. There is a huge difference between an elective abortion and a medically necessary one. You're conflating the two because "a doctor performs it".

My statement is simply that there is no reason not to prohibit elective abortions after some point in the pregnancy. Typically this is at viability, which is around 24 weeks. If you claim no woman would ever get an elective abortion at 8 months then I would imagine you also believe no women would ever get an elective abortion after 6 months (ie 24 weeks, the point of viability). Therefore there is no reason not to restrict elective abortions after that point.

> There is a huge difference between an elective abortion and a medically necessary one. You're conflating the two because "a doctor performs it".

And a doctor, decides what's medically necessary, and decides to perform it or not. This is daft semantic hairsplitting, again. Stupid word games, not a productive debate.

> Therefore there is no reason not to restrict elective abortions after that point.

Ans also no reason _to_ restrict them. Which makes the whole statement quite pointless. But we don't bias in favour of excessive pointless laws and government intrusion on private matters, now do we?

You don't get direct answers because your questions do not come across as seeking clarity, just a) "gotchas" and b) going down garden paths.

  > And a doctor, decides what's medically necessary, and decides to perform it or not. 

Yup, and if a doctor deems than an abortion is not medically necessary, the woman can still have one anyway. Which makes it elective. Elective abortions are the ones we're discussing.

  > Ans also no reason _to_ restrict them. 

Why shouldn't we restrict them? If it's late enough in term that the child is viable, and there is no threat to the life of the mother, then why should that type of abortion be legal?

How is an elective abortion at 32 weeks any different from killing an infant?