The Personhood of the unborn needs to be settled

[Coyote]

They are not a person.

Lets play stupid and pretend we don't know what a fetus becomes....Lets play stupid and pretend we don't know what's inside an eagles egg.

No need to play stupid. The key word is becomes. Not is. And it night never become. Most pregnancies do not.

Hey look...I'm not debating the hair splitting twisted semantics you whackos hide behind to justify your filth...That said, do you think it's odd that you defend an eagles egg the way you do?

I totally defend an eagle's right to raise its egg. Likewise I totally support a woman's right to bear her child. I oppose forced abortions on any woman.

Sure you do...haha...what a poor attempt to deflect.

That coming from someone supporting laws that punish abortion with a life sentence but rapists off with a comparative slap on the wrist...

 

[Coyote]

They are not a person.

Lets play stupid and pretend we don't know what a fetus becomes....Lets play stupid and pretend we don't know what's inside an eagles egg.

No need to play stupid. The key word is becomes. Not is. And it night never become. Most pregnancies do not.

Hey look...I'm not debating the hair splitting twisted semantics you whackos hide behind to justify your filth...That said, do you think it's odd that you defend an eagles egg the way you do?

You are obsessed with filth. Stop projecting it on others. It is not semantics. Now keep your filthy hands off of our rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

View attachment 261221

I do believe that if you are pro-abortion, you have nothing to say to anyone else about morality, and should be ashamed of flattering yourself like that.

 

[Coyote]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

They are not a person.

Lets play stupid and pretend we don't know what a fetus becomes....Lets play stupid and pretend we don't know what's inside an eagles egg.

No need to play stupid. The key word is becomes. Not is. And it night never become. Most pregnancies do not.

At any point along the continuum he or she is fully human.

It is always fully human, the question is at what point does it 's's rights equal or exceeds the mothers? It isnt a parasite or "lump of flesh". But neither does it have individual rights and responsibilities until birth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

As already correctly noted, it was settled over 40 years ago.

As a fact of constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a person, a fact settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

 

[Coyote]

The issue of "survivability" is an ignorant argument. An infant cannot survive without the care of another. Should we be able to kill them too? How about hospital patients? If you're going to qualify someone as a human being simply by one's ability to be self sufficient you're opening up one big goddamn can of worms.

Ordinary care is obligatory for all persons, including infants. So no, you can't just kill them. Has nothing to do with being self-sufficient. Viability is the point where the organism has the all the bodily functions that sustain life (even though infants cannot provide for themselves).

So by your logic, the victim of a car accident with 2 collapsed lungs, therefore NOT having all of the bodily functions to sustain life, should just be left to die?

Now you're just being obtuse. No, you can't let this one just die either. The treatment to re-inflate the lungs would fall under ordinary care in any emergency room and they would be obliged to treat the victim.

No, I'm extending your logic to it's natural conclusion. You just don't like where it leads. If you're going to claim that a person only has the right to live on the basis of their ability to self-sustain, then this is what you get.

I find it interesting that you keep using the term "ordinary care". What could POSSIBLY be more ordinary then the human gestational process? It's literally how every single human being is produced.

Your logic fails. Treating a crash victim does not utilize another person's body or life against their will.

 

[Coyote]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

They are not a person.

How do we legally identify a person if not through DNA. DNA says they are human.

Humanity alone does not confer rights or personhood.

 

[BlindBoo]

The issue of "survivability" is an ignorant argument. An infant cannot survive without the care of another. Should we be able to kill them too? How about hospital patients? If you're going to qualify someone as a human being simply by one's ability to be self sufficient you're opening up one big goddamn can of worms.

Ordinary care is obligatory for all persons, including infants. So no, you can't just kill them. Has nothing to do with being self-sufficient. Viability is the point where the organism has the all the bodily functions that sustain life (even though infants cannot provide for themselves).

So by your logic, the victim of a car accident with 2 collapsed lungs, therefore NOT having all of the bodily functions to sustain life, should just be left to die?

Now you're just being obtuse. No, you can't let this one just die either. The treatment to re-inflate the lungs would fall under ordinary care in any emergency room and they would be obliged to treat the victim.

No, I'm extending your logic to it's natural conclusion. You just don't like where it leads. If you're going to claim that a person only has the right to live on the basis of their ability to self-sustain, then this is what you get.

I find it interesting that you keep using the term "ordinary care". What could POSSIBLY be more ordinary then the human gestational process? It's literally how every single human being is produced.

Your logic fails. Treating a crash victim does not utilize another person's body or life against their will.

I don't remember if I posted this link for satrebil. but here goes.

Ordinary vs. Extraordinary Care - American Life League

 

[BrokeLoser]

Lets play stupid and pretend we don't know what a fetus becomes....Lets play stupid and pretend we don't know what's inside an eagles egg.

No need to play stupid. The key word is becomes. Not is. And it night never become. Most pregnancies do not.

Hey look...I'm not debating the hair splitting twisted semantics you whackos hide behind to justify your filth...That said, do you think it's odd that you defend an eagles egg the way you do?

You are obsessed with filth. Stop projecting it on others. It is not semantics. Now keep your filthy hands off of our rights.

View attachment 261281

Conservatives:
“We want you to pay for your own children.”

Filthy Pieces Of Shits:
“What...you think my children are better off dead?”

The level of Loon from you LefTarded folks grows by the day.

 

[Coyote]

No need to play stupid. The key word is becomes. Not is. And it night never become. Most pregnancies do not.

Hey look...I'm not debating the hair splitting twisted semantics you whackos hide behind to justify your filth...That said, do you think it's odd that you defend an eagles egg the way you do?

You are obsessed with filth. Stop projecting it on others. It is not semantics. Now keep your filthy hands off of our rights.

View attachment 261281

Conservatives:
“We want you to pay for your own children.”

Filthy Pieces Of Shits:
“What...you think my children are better off dead?”

The level of Loon from you LefTarded folks grows by the day.

Filthy Pieces of Shit: we wont help you with your kids but we sure as hell will force you to bear them.

 

[playtime]

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

A person is simply a human being. And it is an undeniable scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.

it is human 'life' but a post born PERSON is a human being.

One of the lead architects of the Alabama bill made this view even more plain when he stated that the measure, which purports to protect fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses, would not actually apply to all embryos. After all, if you argue that life begins at conception, that’s a big problem for I.V.F. In the name of protecting “life,” anti-abortion legislators could functionally outlaw fertility treatments that involve fertilizing eggs and selecting the strongest embryos for implantation. But don’t worry, said Alabama State Senator Clyde Chambliss: “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.”

In other words, it’s not about the life of a fertilized egg at all. It’s about controlling women.

Alabama’s Abortion Bill Is Immoral, Inhumane, and Wildly Inconsistent

 

[playtime]

Morning after pill isn't always effective. And most women don't use abortion as birth control. Accidents happen. Many women who have gotten pregnant by accident were taking precautions. Then you have rape victims.

If abortion is overturned we risk going back tot he days of coat hangers

You’re going to do what LefTards do...hide behind the one percentile to justify your filth?
Hmm..I wonder how many abortions you’ve had performed?

Birth control failing is more than 1%. And especially with put the obesity rates, birth control failure is higher. Birth control methods like the pill are less effective on overweight women, along with the morning after pill.

Then there are medical conditions that call for it.

I did have to have an abortion one time, because I had an ectopic pregnancy. So am I a murderer too?

What you are is willfully stupid, if you really can't tell the difference between ending an ectopic pregnancy and having an abortion because motherhood would interfere with your promotion at work.

For one who brags what a good Christian they are, you sure talk like a stupid white trash bitch. Fake Christian says what?

Ooh, I see a red herring twitting about. A non Christian trying to identify real Christians. Cute. Moving on.



Did it ever occur to any of you far leftists that as a woman, Cecilie is just as qualified to speak on abortion rights as any woman to the far left of her?

The idea that she isn't qualified to speak on the issue due to her political opinion on abortion is uh... how can I say this? Sexist. Discriminatory. Nothing about her opinion disqualifies her from speaking on abortion or the ethics thereof. I can't speak to whether she has had children or not, but if she has, she would have far more experience on the issue of the humanity of a child than some people trying to pass off "a fetus isn't human" as scientific fact.

& as a woman - if she doesn't believe in choice, then it is her choice not to have an abortion. yep --- it really is that simple.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Hey look...I'm not debating the hair splitting twisted semantics you whackos hide behind to justify your filth...That said, do you think it's odd that you defend an eagles egg the way you do?

You are obsessed with filth. Stop projecting it on others. It is not semantics. Now keep your filthy hands off of our rights.

View attachment 261281

Conservatives:
“We want you to pay for your own children.”

Filthy Pieces Of Shits:
“What...you think my children are better off dead?”

The level of Loon from you LefTarded folks grows by the day.

Filthy Pieces of Shit: we wont help you with your kids but we sure as hell will force you to bear them.

LefTard Logic:
Filthy Pieces Of Shits = Those who expect people to pay for their own children

Not Filthy Pieces Of Shits = Those who expect others to pay for their children.

Folks, I’m not making this shit up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

A person is simply a human being. And it is an undeniable scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.

Please link to a single scientific reference to the word "being"

You are just playing symantics.

Embryo is no more "a being" than a few skin cells.

Definition of BEING

That sort of word-parsing probably makes you look brilliant to the other Cro-Mags, but it doesn't fly here.

First of all, from your own link:

: a living thing

Second of all, "human being" is a compound word, Mensa Boy. You might have heard your grammar school teacher mention it before you dropped out.

Definition of HUMAN BEING

Following that hyperlink, you get:

Definition of HUMAN

Maybe you should have learned how to use the dictionary thingie before preening yourself on being smarter than anyone.

Oh, and FYI, the word is "semantics", genius.

you can call it whatever the you want, it ain’t a person that anyone has any empathy for and it will in a civilized society never have rights over ACTUAL people you want to force into continuing pregnancy and having an unwanted child.

You are so ass-backward. YOU are the one engaged in "calling it what you want." I am telling you what biology says it s, and why, and you are airily waving your hand and saying, "Fuck that factual shit. I see it this way, so that's how it is, and if I just declare my ignorant fantasies to be fact enough time, the Blue Fairy will wave her wand and make me somehow not a dumbass."

Please attempt to be an adult, or at least a homo sapien, and grasp the reality that your emotions matter only to you. The universe is not dictated by how your egotistical ass feels about it. A fetus is a person, whether three-toothed mouthbreathing primates like you feel good about it or not. Your lack of empathy is a problem you need to take up with your group therapy session; it does not stop a fetus from being the living, individual human organism (colloquially known by grade-school dropouts like you as "a person") it is any more than it would stop the planet Saturn from having rings around it if your Almighty Megalomaniac self "had no empathy" for it.

Furthermore, your emotional buzzwords of "force into pregnancy" don't work on me, because unlike you, I don't think with my glands. You'll want to learn some new tricks if you want to talk to the higher life forms, Fido.

 

[playtime]

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

A person is simply a human being. And it is an undeniable scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.

it is human 'life' but a post born PERSON is a human being.

Except the Bird, Reptile, and Pig are recognized for what they are and not classified as a substandard version of their species for the means of setting a political agenda.

LOL!!!! except so called 'pro lifers' want a post born female already experiencing a life history is to be considered a substandard version of their species & not have autonomy over their own uterus. then when the host is no longer useful & the cord is cut, then 'pro lifers' consider their job is done & whatever happens next is not any of their concern especially if it has to do with money being used to take care of any children forced to term.

 

[playtime]

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

A person is simply a human being. And it is an undeniable scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.

it is human 'life' but a post born PERSON is a human being.

AS for the illustration you got off on that implied human embryos could be a bird, reptile or pig, that is total hogwash. It is a human being in an early stage of development. A human being who cuts a first tooth is in a stage of development in which his pain is translated into a cry for help. A human being who commits to an act of unprotected sex that results in a mass of human cells implanting into its mother's womb is in the first stages of human development. The male participant in this pleasant gift of sex is the father, and the female participant is the mother. Their genes are combined into a brand new and separate human being, who like the father needing some female pleasure, needs a home. The time for her to elect not giving a new human being in his first stage of development should have read a book instead of having sex with someone who considered her just an object and possibly, vice-versa.

If you can kill a fetus, don't be surprised if the world doesn't just decide killing anyone who makes you feel obligated will just live with your murder and won't care for you or think of you ever again since your death was just an unpleasant occurance in a world full of murderous killers looking for a thrill of killing, which is the wont of serial killers.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap. It was true then, and it will be true when women change the world into a place that accepts murderers without the blink of an eye or one iota of caring.

You kill your own, you get a world of killing ahead of you, and that's how it is. I did not make the rules of the world, I just know what they are. Don't shoot the messenger because you support killing unborn human beings (who will never be pigs, by the way), you're going to find the dice roll will be on you sooner than you think.

I hope that was actually addressed to PLAYTIME, not to me, because I agree with you, I was not the one who posted that illustration. I was the one who posted the meme mocking the misconceptions people have about the preborn. I think you accidentally quoted me instead of him.

her. i am a her. & it's not a misconception. your silly meme was equating a zygote, an embryo, a fetus & a post born person with a history as all being the same. they certainly are not.

lol.....

 

[playtime]

it is human 'life' but a post born PERSON is a human being.

AS for the illustration you got off on that implied human embryos could be a bird, reptile or pig, that is total hogwash. It is a human being in an early stage of development. A human being who cuts a first tooth is in a stage of development in which his pain is translated into a cry for help. A human being who commits to an act of unprotected sex that results in a mass of human cells implanting into its mother's womb is in the first stages of human development. The male participant in this pleasant gift of sex is the father, and the female participant is the mother. Their genes are combined into a brand new and separate human being, who like the father needing some female pleasure, needs a home. The time for her to elect not giving a new human being in his first stage of development should have read a book instead of having sex with someone who considered her just an object and possibly, vice-versa.

If you can kill a fetus, don't be surprised if the world doesn't just decide killing anyone who makes you feel obligated will just live with your murder and won't care for you or think of you ever again since your death was just an unpleasant occurance in a world full of murderous killers looking for a thrill of killing, which is the wont of serial killers.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap. It was true then, and it will be true when women change the world into a place that accepts murderers without the blink of an eye or one iota of caring.

You kill your own, you get a world of killing ahead of you, and that's how it is. I did not make the rules of the world, I just know what they are. Don't shoot the messenger because you support killing unborn human beings (who will never be pigs, by the way), you're going to find the dice roll will be on you sooner than you think.

I hope that was actually addressed to PLAYTIME, not to me, because I agree with you, I was not the one who posted that illustration. I was the one who posted the meme mocking the misconceptions people have about the preborn. I think you accidentally quoted me instead of him.

Sorry. I thought you posted the gravestone picture that said "The fetus isn't human," "Skin cells are human too", "Ejaculation kills millions of humans", the cold-hearted commentary that "The Fetus is a Parasite," "Life doesn't begin at conception" (a lie), "The fetus is a clump of cells." (no, it's still the first stage in the life of a human being, and drinking alcohol at this time can render that infant without body parts or with a severely disfigured face.) "It's (only) a part of the woman's body" (not true, it is not like its mother genetically, and is the starting stage of an entirely different human being's life), and "the embryo isn't even alive." If it weren't alive it would not be forming cells to become organs, limbs, and features similar to other human beings by the DNA of that INDIVIDUAL life that is damn certainly not its mother, and it's not it's father. It is a new human being in its formative stage. Cute little sayings that are little white lies will never amount to the value of one unborn American that is savagely and brutally murdered and drug out of a woman's body. Not ever.

So I was answering the post you put in. Most people put something in their posts in the form of an answer to the person they are communicating with. I wish you had indicated the gravestone picture with the natty false narrative sayings in it was someone else's contribution, Buttercup. the right thing to do is to credit the "picture" to whoever posted that picture, and not leave it to the guesswork that it was your idea to bring it here.

I did post that, but it was a meme showing those false statements with an image of a grave with the words "Here lies basic biology." In other words, people who say those things don't know basic biology.

I'm sorry if that meme was confusing at first glance, but as you can see by all my other posts, rest assured I am firmly pro-life.

if you think a 6 week old embryo is the same as a 6year old child then it is you who is scrambled in the knowledge of biology, sweety.

 

[playtime]

You place far too much value on potential human life, and not nearly enough on the living, breathing human beings who created it and who will be responsible for raising the child to come, to be a functioning, self- sufficient, contributing member of society.

Oh... perhaps I lied.

"You place far too much value on potential human life"

You're damn right I do.

Because I know what that life will be if cared for properly and not discarded at the convenience of the oh so oppressed woman you keep describing in your posts.

"Potential"

How demeaning.

the same people who scream the loudest about the 'sanctity of life' have no problems about turning a blind eye to brown children & their mamas.

4th migrant child dies in U.S. custody since December
Nation May 16, 2019 6:17 PM EDT

4th migrant child dies in U.S. custody since December

 

[Cecilie1200]

A person is simply a human being. And it is an undeniable scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.

it is human 'life' but a post born PERSON is a human being.

AS for the illustration you got off on that implied human embryos could be a bird, reptile or pig, that is total hogwash. It is a human being in an early stage of development. A human being who cuts a first tooth is in a stage of development in which his pain is translated into a cry for help. A human being who commits to an act of unprotected sex that results in a mass of human cells implanting into its mother's womb is in the first stages of human development. The male participant in this pleasant gift of sex is the father, and the female participant is the mother. Their genes are combined into a brand new and separate human being, who like the father needing some female pleasure, needs a home. The time for her to elect not giving a new human being in his first stage of development should have read a book instead of having sex with someone who considered her just an object and possibly, vice-versa.

If you can kill a fetus, don't be surprised if the world doesn't just decide killing anyone who makes you feel obligated will just live with your murder and won't care for you or think of you ever again since your death was just an unpleasant occurance in a world full of murderous killers looking for a thrill of killing, which is the wont of serial killers.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap. It was true then, and it will be true when women change the world into a place that accepts murderers without the blink of an eye or one iota of caring.

You kill your own, you get a world of killing ahead of you, and that's how it is. I did not make the rules of the world, I just know what they are. Don't shoot the messenger because you support killing unborn human beings (who will never be pigs, by the way), you're going to find the dice roll will be on you sooner than you think.

I hope that was actually addressed to PLAYTIME, not to me, because I agree with you, I was not the one who posted that illustration. I was the one who posted the meme mocking the misconceptions people have about the preborn. I think you accidentally quoted me instead of him.

Sorry. I thought you posted the gravestone picture that said "The fetus isn't human," "Skin cells are human too", "Ejaculation kills millions of humans", the cold-hearted commentary that "The Fetus is a Parasite," "Life doesn't begin at conception" (a lie), "The fetus is a clump of cells." (no, it's still the first stage in the life of a human being, and drinking alcohol at this time can render that infant without body parts or with a severely disfigured face.) "It's (only) a part of the woman's body" (not true, it is not like its mother genetically, and is the starting stage of an entirely different human being's life), and "the embryo isn't even alive." If it weren't alive it would not be forming cells to become organs, limbs, and features similar to other human beings by the DNA of that INDIVIDUAL life that is damn certainly not its mother, and it's not it's father. It is a new human being in its formative stage. Cute little sayings that are little white lies will never amount to the value of one unborn American that is savagely and brutally murdered and drug out of a woman's body. Not ever.

So I was answering the post you put in. Most people put something in their posts in the form of an answer to the person they are communicating with. I wish you had indicated the gravestone picture with the natty false narrative sayings in it was someone else's contribution, Buttercup. the right thing to do is to credit the "picture" to whoever posted that picture, and not leave it to the guesswork that it was your idea to bring it here.

Yes, buttercup posted the picture of the gravestone. Did you notice that the gravestone says, "Here lies basic biology"? As in, all of those excuses and lies are the death of basic biological knowledge, because they ignore and deny it?

Maybe instead of kneejerking into action to lecture and attack people, you should take a breath and consider that SHE didn't post incorrectly; you just didn't take time to understand what you were seeing.

 

[playtime]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

Dear Votto regardless of which person or group believes what,
the fact that people HAVE different beliefs is enough for Govt to recognize that
no laws can be made biased toward or against one set of beliefs over another,
or it constituties Govt establishing beliefs and discriminating against other creeds.

Just the fact that people have beliefs about this which Govt can neither establish nor prohibit
makes it where people need to resolve their own policy issues and either
A. AGREE on what policies they consent for the govt to represent at either state or federal levels
B. AGREE to SEPARATE funding, jurisdiction and terms if they CANNOT agree on those areas of policy

The most I can see Govt doing is defending the rights of people of conflicting beliefs
to SEPARATE from each other and quit imposing one belief over others.

Govt has the duty to protect equal representation for people REGARDLESS of creed.
So unless all citizens of a state AGREE to a centralized policy for all,
they should have protected means of separate representation and terms of funding
their own programs and policies they believe in. Where this does not interfere
with people of other parties, groups or beliefs to do the same to protect their interests as well!

Wrong!

Laws are created by a belief system as to what is "good": or "bad". There is no divorcing morality from the law, the only question becomes, whose beliefs? That is why human beings have many rights animals don't. The belief is that human beings have innate rights from God that animals do not have because God made man in his own image and not animals. That is why we are free to lock animals up in zoos, keep them as pets for our personal amusement, use them as beasts of burden, or kill and eat them.

Now many on the godless Left has seen this and disagreed with this, and rightly so since they deny the belief that man has innate rights. At least they are consistent with those beliefs. But this is dangerous territory. You could then make the presumption that since man has no innate rights under God, then our rights are subject to the whims of lawmakers. Next thing you know all of our rights might go bye, bye, or we will end up treating animals better than we treat ourselves.

That seems to be where Progressives seem to be headed.

the hyde amendment that has been around since the 70s has made it so no federal funds are used for abortion except in the extreme cases where it is medically necessary & i believe no less than 3 physicians have to sign off on it.