Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[KLB]

They will probably stick with what we have.

 

[jamil]

Humans have rights. A two cell zygote is human and alive ergo it has rights. Better?

No. It's not.

He didn't say you were literally Alynski,

Hey, I get to use hyperbole to make a point too.

he said that your argument followed one of the rules he proposed in his writings.

He was in internet battle mode, found a pattern to attack and then went on about it, as if I'm a completely different person from what my posting history would suggest for many years. Do you think I was using an Alynski tactic?

And here is what you said.
"And I've also said that that doesn't matter in terms of what policies you want. If you want abortions banned because you think it's a sin

Would it have made you feel better if I said, "sin or whatever?". Because that's what I think about it.

, then you get to vote for the people in service of that. And bat **** crazy people with far left ideologies get to vote for other bat **** crazy people in service of allowing abortions up until the kid is out of high school. Anyway, "at conception" is no more objective than anyone else who might base their morals on something besides religion."

I have consistently stated that I think the "at conception" comes from a religious worldview. Religious people, think murder is a sin, and many religious people think that ending a pregnancy even right after conception is murder. But my main point is that if there are non-religious people who hold the "at conception" point of view, it's very few. Correlation doesn't prove causation. But it's highly correlated. And that just to say, it's not as black and white as you want to imagine. That's the point. My point doesn't require you to think it's a sin or not. It's just one part of the religious argument. And you've missed the point.

Yes it answered my question, but it also is a reverse of your earlier position that rights come from morals, which I don't agree with. I can agree that recognition of rights comes from morals though.

It's not a reverse of it. It's a confirmation of it.

And I can agree with you on judging people based on today's morals.

Well I've heard women are from Venus, but I didn't realize they weren't human. But I'll have to disagree, they may not be fully developed but they are still a human. A person isn't fully developed until their 20s. That doesn't make a newborn, even a 20 week preemie not human.

I'm gonna do something different here. I'm gonna replace my usual 1000 words with a couple of images.

Most people can tell the difference between this:




And:



I do think that somewhere between the two it's obviously immoral to end a pregnancy. I think that point is closer to the first image. But where that point is, I think that it's where rights should attach. Maybe it's at the point where the fetus can feel pain. The consensus is closer to that than the first image. But we're not going to agree on that. And it seems pointless to keep going at this part of the argument. I'm more interested in how one's worldview drives their moral beliefs.

 

[LeftyGunner]

This doesn't answer the question, but I guess I should have excluded the mother's actual health risks.

I think if doctors tell the mother that she's in grave risk if she takes the baby to term, c-section is off the table. All the other interventions for whatever reason is off the table. And the only way to avoid the risk is to terminate the pregnancy (and I think this would be an extraordinary case, so is not much more than philosophy that we're talking about it) then I think the mother has a right to save herself.

But, we're not talking about that. We're talking about for any other reason. So, after a night of fun and ****ing--nothing wrong with that, but without thinking of consequences, some point after she finds out she's pregnant, and at some point after that she decides she doesn't really want to be pregnant. So how long into the pregnancy does her right to her whim, supersede the unborn's right not to be killed?

You said something about "at first breath". If that's the case, do you think that responsibility plays any role at all? Should that responsibility not be encoded in the law at least a little? What about the fact that by whim, after declining opportunities to be at least a little more responsible, she chooses to discard a child at the worst possible time for the child to be killed? Is that okay?

I’m about as far left on this issue as a person gets, and even I think there should be limits, but I think those limits have to be carefully considered and porous enough to allow for extraordinary circumstances.

In a perfect world fewer people would engage in sexually irresponsible behavior, but our is far from perfect.

I think a good compromise would have to center around viability: the ability of a person to take that First Breath and survive apart from the mother that never wanted them in the first place.

For me, I have no problems with unlimited access to medical/pharmaceutical abortion in the first trimester. In the same lane, I have no problems limiting third trimester abortions to those only absolutely medically necessary to save the life of a distressed mother or end the suffering of a fetus with deformities that are incompatible with life outside the womb.

However, for me personally, there is a grey are that arises in the middle. Once a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb (without extraordinary measures) I think there is a strong argument to treat that person with a measure of individuality, and the “right not to be killed” (as you put it) can be appropriately weighed against that of the mother. As such, I would be a bit leery of too much black and white legislation in the second trimester.

Personally, I think RvW was bad jurisprudence that made sense in the time and place it was enacted. I think it might make sense to abandon the decision, but I fear the current political climate is incompatible with gray areas, and we are about to enter an era where bad partisan legislation replaces bad bipartisan jurisprudence.

Thank you for your replies.

 

[jamil]

Mornin INGOers! Thanks for keeping the discussion civil and the thread between the ditches. Also thank you @Cameramonkey for the Mod props (see what I did there??)

Edit: Now I remember what I was going to post. Slight sidebar but staying with the subject. What will the Indiana Statehouse in the 2023 session look like if the leaked Alito draft turns out to be the majority opinion?

I think bills might fly. But all will be for looks. And the parliamentary games will look a lot like the constitutional carry issue looked like in the statehouse. Because Republicans care most about keeping their power. But it's my prediction that not much of significance will reach Holcomb's desk while he's in office unless there's a lot of political pressure.

 

[jamil]

I’m about as far left on this issue as a person gets, and even I think there should be limits, but I think those limits have to be carefully considered and porous enough to allow for extraordinary circumstances.

In a perfect world fewer people would engage in sexually irresponsible behavior, but our is far from perfect.

I think a good compromise would have to center around viability: the ability of a person to take that First Breath and survive apart from the mother that never wanted them in the first place.

Okay, that clears something up. Usually when I hear the "first breath" argument, they mean right up to birth. Not just premature birth, but full term birth. And that's bat-**** crazy. But if you just mean "viability", I'm not sure I agree with that. I think it would be earlier than that. But anyway, your position isn't as far left as a person gets. Some leftists have said up to before the cord is cut.

For me, I have no problems with unlimited access to medical/pharmaceutical abortion in the first trimester. In the same lane, I have no problems limiting third trimester abortions to those only absolutely medically necessary to save the life of a distressed mother or end the suffering of a fetus with deformities that are incompatible with life outside the womb.

This does not sound all that radically left. I'm probably a bit more to the right of you though. If we both understand "distressed" the same way, I don't think that should be a standard. A hysterical mother is not a moral reason to end a nearly formed baby's life. But otherwise I think I would agree. An abortion in the 3rd trimester should be extremely rare and only under extraordinary conditions. Like one or the other will die otherwise.

However, for me personally, there is a grey are that arises in the middle. Once a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb (without extraordinary measures) I think there is a strong argument to treat that person with a measure of individuality, and the “right not to be killed” (as you put it) can be appropriately weighed against that of the mother. As such, I would be a bit leery of too much black and white legislation in the second trimester.

I kinda think second trimester is a no-go unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

Personally, I think RvW was bad jurisprudence that made sense in the time and place it was enacted. I think it might make sense to abandon the decision, but I fear the current political climate is incompatible with gray areas, and we are about to enter an era where bad partisan legislation replaces bad bipartisan jurisprudence.

Thank you for your replies.

When I first read your posts I thought you were off your rocker. As you've explained yourself here, I don't see anything that's, well, insane. You're to the left of me, and not that anyone needs jamil's seal of approval, but I think I was wrong about your thinking on this. We just disagree on some things. I don't think bad jurisprudence ever makes sense at any time. I think the court made the law they wanted. Even if were the right policy the rule of law is greater than that. The court violated that and they shouldn't have that power. When they strike down a law, there should be a legal and/or constitutional basis to do so.

 

[Bugzilla]

I cannot ever agree with this. What you are saying is that the mother is saying that the best thing she can do for her unborn child is to take that child's life. If that is true, why is it true only up until the point of birth?

I thought I heard that getting pregnant is 100% preventable.

 

[jamil]

I cannot ever agree with this. What you are saying is that the mother is saying that the best thing she can do for her unborn child is to take that child's life. If that is true, why is it true only up until the point of birth?

He said "bring into this world". So once the child is born it's already there. So then it becomes an issue of removing from the world. And under our laws that would be murder. But I agree that given the stakes, I'm not inclined to think it's moral to kill a child at that stage just because the mother is nervous.

 

[chipbennett]

It's not really. I'm looking for an acknowledgment that "right to life" really means right not to be killed. This works.

Wasn't it you that scolded me for bringing philosophy into it? Maybe it was someone else. I thought it was you. If not, fine. We're in agreement on that. If it was you, fine. I'm glad we're now in agreement on that.

Again, it was looking for acknowledgement of the former point.

I don't think we ever disagreed on what "right to life" means. I think we agree that it means agency to pursue/protect one's own life, and does not imply any compulsion upon anyone other than self to provide for one's life (or its attendant needs).

Well, fine, but this is an opinion. And it does not address one of the issues I had with the earlier point, that it does not balance the mother's rights. You jumped into my **** initially when I made a statement in response to someone else, that I didn't think there was a good secular argument for "at conception". And that a religious argument is probably the best you have. Or something to that effect. So now we're talking about "grey areas" and a sentiment of "just in case we're wrong". Well, if you're going to try to make a deductive argument, which you were at first, then there is no "just in case", no "grey areas", etcetera. And if we now agree that this is your opinion, and not "the science", we have no further disagreements to resolve. What we have left is two people who agree to disagree on some opinions we have in difference.

It's not an "opinion". It is objective reasoning, if we start with the assumption that unalienable rights attach to human beings. That attachment must take place at some point in human development. That's not an opinion, but rather a logical conclusion of the underlying assumption.

My personal, religious belief is that those rights attach at the moment a new, human life is created - i.e. at conception (but then, you already knew that, I assume). For the purpose of argument, I use not conception but the two-celled zygote as the point at which there is definitively, scientifically, without question, a new human life - which removes any ambiguity of a religiously-based argument. For the purpose of discussion, I explored how someone taking a purely secular view could come to a logical conclusion that the right to life should be assumed/protected for that two-celled zygote.

Why do you so strongly resist the obvious necessity of "gray area" in terms of attachment of the right to life of a living human? The right to life attaches to living humans, fullstop. We have agreed on that point. That attachment is inherent and is not dependent upon our opinions on the matter. Therefore, the right to life either attaches to the two-celled zygote or it doesn't - and we don't have any control over it. If we assume that it does not, but in fact it does, then we create a situation in which we legalize the unjust taking of the life of a human to which the right to life attaches.

There is no "opinion" here. There is no "religious basis" here. There is simply the logical conclusion drawn from the agreed-upon principle that human beings have the right to life.

You've confirmed my suspicions then. You assumed, I suspect because of mental pattern matching, that I'm one of those, because it matches the pattern you're conditioned to react that way to.

I was not using a tactic. I don't care about that nonsense. This is all stuff I've thought about a lot, and it's my conclusions. And it's not just a whim. For **** sake Chip, we've both been on this board arguing the same points on occasion and opposing points on occasion, for the last 8 or so years. Is your memory that short? All of a sudden, you really think I'm going full on Alinsky on you? C'mon man. Gimme a break. Maybe you haven't read a recent post I made, that should explain why I'm a non-religious person who's not adversarial towards religion. I'm fond of religion, especially Christian religion. I just don't believe in it. But it seems to me you're smart enough that you should be able to rub a couple of empirical and intuitively obvious facts together to draw a better conclusion than "He's Alynski!".

I didn't say that you are an Alinskyite. I said that you used an Alinsky tactic - and that is because you did. You are trying to shoehorn my logical argumentation into a box bounded by your claims of my religious bias, thereby forcing me to "play by my own rulebook." As long as you keep insisting that people who hold religious beliefs by necessity must be presenting arguments that are biased by those beliefs, I will continue to call it out for what it is: logical fallacy.

I'll say it again in case, amidst the many words I tend to lay down, you might have missed it. I think it's reasonable to say that 1) the "at conception" argument is primarily from a religious worldview. I didn't say you couldn't use a secular argument to make your point. But your point is indeed deriving from your religious worldview.

I'm perfectly capable of making arguments from the perspective of my faith. I am choosing not to do so, because I am also perfectly capable of making rational, science-based, secular arguments. Repeatedly telling people (including me) who hold religious beliefs that our arguments are biased by those beliefs is both logical fallacy, and disrespectful. (To be clear: I'm not in any way upset over it. I have thick skin and I respect you. I'm merely pointing it out.)

2) My reason for making that point is so that you guys who are so cocksure that it's absolutely, objectively, even "scientifically", at conception, you might be able to see that it's actually just one of many perspectives. And that yours is also subjective, and dependent on your worldview.

Again, the reason that I reference the two-celled zygote is to eliminate any possibility of scientific ambiguity regarding "genetically human" and "biologically living". There is nothing "subjective" about stating that a two-celled zygote is a living human being. That statement is irrefutable, scientific fact, and is not in any way based on one's "worldview."

A religious person can seek secular reasons for holding a position. But. Secular people don't hold that position. Why? They have a different world view, most of them, that doesn't tend to produce that opinion. But. If you can find reliable data that show religious people are no more likely to make the "at conception" argument than non-religious people, I'd be happy to change my thinking on that.

I never said that a secular person must hold the position I presented; rather, I merely presented a position that would be entirely reasonable/acceptable for a secular person to hold - a position that is based on scientific fact and logical deduction, starting from a given assumption (i.e. that humans have the right to life).

Just because you can assemble secular reasons doesn't mean that your underlying worldview isn't what's actually driving your belief, and that because of that, it's actually an subjective viewpoint. In other words, we all got opinions. So let's not beat each other up over opinions, unless you're of the opinion that a baby can be killed right up to its first breath, because mommy lives matter. You can beat those people up (not physically).

Okay. So are you over this Alynski **** now?

I'll be over it, just as soon as you stop insisting that every argument presented by a person of religious faith is based in/biased by that person's religious beliefs. If you don't like it being pointed out that you're using an Alinsky tactic, then perhaps the solution is to stop using the Alinsky tactic.

 

[chipbennett]

That's wrong. A zygote contains all the genetic code to form everything that a human will become. It's not yet what a human will become. Therefore it's not everything that a human is. It doesn't have a dick to think with yet.

By that argument, a newborn human is also "not yet what a human will become." A toddler is "not yet what a human will become." Heck, an adolescent or a teenager is "not yet what a human will become."

Humanity is not defined by a stage of development, and that zygote self-directs its own growth and development into later stages.

 

[chipbennett]

Assigning rights to a zygote is necessary, to provide a logical-sounding rationale for forcing raped women to carry to term.

Denying rights to a zygote is necessary, to provide a logical-sounding rationale for taking the life of a human to which the right to life has attached.

As I alluded to before, some cannot take their 98% and get off the field. They want the other 2%. It may be motivated by religious beliefs. It may be motivated by the cynical belief that rape-claims will skyrocket, as a way of "getting around" the new regime. Or a combination of both. But I think that's mostly what this is about; rationalizing the quest for that remaining 2%.

Why should the child be forced to lose its life because a third party committed a heinous act against its mother?

 

[jamil]

By that argument, a newborn human is also "not yet what a human will become." A toddler is "not yet what a human will become." Heck, an adolescent or a teenager is "not yet what a human will become."

Humanity is not defined by a stage of development, and that zygote self-directs its own growth and development into later stages.

Maybe if you distort the argument beyond what I've said. At least the baby has a dick to think with. Do you not see a difference between the two images I posted?

 

[chipbennett]

I think the mental or physical deficiency argument was had many pages ago. And as far as the process goes, a fetus can't feel pain until something like the 20th week or so. At least as far as we know. But honestly I am getting kinda tired of this part of the argument. Because no one is changing anyone's mind. It's like people on your side of the argument are constantly looking for information that makes it more obvious that a zygote is morally equal to any other human at any other stage and it's really not. You've probably made up your mind before you saw any of those videos. And I'm not disparaging that. But I think it's worth acknowledging all the things that are true about a thing along with all the things that aren't, that you know of.

I have merely argued that it may or may not be. On what basis do you insist that it definitively is not? How do you definitively conclude that a human at the two-celled zygote developmental stage is not morally equal to a human at any later stage of development?

Sorry, but you don't get to assert this point, merely by forcing the alternative into the religious-belief box. You're using your non-religious perspective into tautology by assuming your own conclusion. I suspect why you're doing it (because you don't want to have to address the "gray area" that results from not knowing). But unless you provide some evidence, your assertion regarding the moral inequality of a two-celled zygote is specious.

 

[chipbennett]

No. It's not.

Yes, a human being at the two-celled zygote stage of development is human, and is living. On what basis do you assert otherwise? How is a two-celled zygote not a living human? You are refuting basic biology at this point.

Most people can tell the difference between this:

View attachment 200194


And:

View attachment 200197

I do think that somewhere between the two it's obviously immoral to end a pregnancy. I think that point is closer to the first image. But where that point is, I think that it's where rights should attach. Maybe it's at the point where the fetus can feel pain. The consensus is closer to that than the first image. But we're not going to agree on that. And it seems pointless to keep going at this part of the argument. I'm more interested in how one's worldview drives their moral beliefs.

So, you state that there is some point between picture A and picture B at which the right to life attaches? But you cannot state where, within that spectrum, that attachment of rights takes place? You admit that we can merely speculate?

How is that not "gray area"? How can you not recognize that our speculation could be wrong? We don't actually get a say regarding the point in developing at which rights attach. We could all agree on "when pain can be felt" - and yet we could still be wrong. We could all agree on "at conception" - and yet we could still be wrong. Why can't you simply admit these truths?

 

[chipbennett]

I’m about as far left on this issue as a person gets, and even I think there should be limits, but I think those limits have to be carefully considered and porous enough to allow for extraordinary circumstances.

In a perfect world fewer people would engage in sexually irresponsible behavior, but our is far from perfect.

I think a good compromise would have to center around viability: the ability of a person to take that First Breath and survive apart from the mother that never wanted them in the first place.

For me, I have no problems with unlimited access to medical/pharmaceutical abortion in the first trimester. In the same lane, I have no problems limiting third trimester abortions to those only absolutely medically necessary to save the life of a distressed mother or end the suffering of a fetus with deformities that are incompatible with life outside the womb.

However, for me personally, there is a grey are that arises in the middle. Once a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb (without extraordinary measures) I think there is a strong argument to treat that person with a measure of individuality, and the “right not to be killed” (as you put it) can be appropriately weighed against that of the mother. As such, I would be a bit leery of too much black and white legislation in the second trimester.

Personally, I think RvW was bad jurisprudence that made sense in the time and place it was enacted. I think it might make sense to abandon the decision, but I fear the current political climate is incompatible with gray areas, and we are about to enter an era where bad partisan legislation replaces bad bipartisan jurisprudence.

Thank you for your replies.

I just wanted to say: thank you for contributing to the discussion and for your reasoned responses. We probably disagree on some parts of your stated beliefs, but I think they at least fall within the realm of "reasonable people can disagree."

 

[chipbennett]

I think bills might fly. But all will be for looks. And the parliamentary games will look a lot like the constitutional carry issue looked like in the statehouse. Because Republicans care most about keeping their power. But it's my prediction that not much of significance will reach Holcomb's desk while he's in office unless there's a lot of political pressure.

Bills may be introduced, but they'll go nowhere. There will be much virtue signaling, and no action. (I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong.)

 

[jamil]

Denying rights to a zygote is necessary, to provide a logical-sounding rationale for taking the life of a human to which the right to life has attached.



Why should the child be forced to lose its life because a third party committed a heinous act against its mother?

I honestly think this is not leading anywhere close to a resolution. You keep saying ****. We keep saying ****. People saying ****.

What's true is that some people, a minority of people here, think that a zygote isn't much beyond genetic instructions for what will develop. You think it's still everything all that whatever will develop is. Some of us think it's not yet equal enough to what will develop, that it has rights. You attach a meaning to that which the other people don't think is there. We have different worldviews that drive this difference in opinion. It's clearly subjective. But you still seem to assert that it's not.

Anyway, are we at least done with the Alinsky nonsense? I don't really care for this version of you.



I like and respect the usual one more.

 

[chipbennett]

I honestly think this is not leading anywhere close to a resolution. You keep saying ****. We keep saying ****. People saying ****.

What's true is that some people, a minority of people here, think that a zygote isn't much beyond genetic instructions for what will develop.

"Genetic instructions" are DNA. A zygote has DNA, but is not, itself, DNA. So, that line thinking is inconsistent with basic, scientific fact. Holding that view requires ignoring what most of us learned in biology as freshman in high school.

You think it's still everything all that whatever will develop is.

Wait: what? When did I say that? A human at the two-celled zygote stage of development is merely a human at the earliest stage of human development. It clearly isn't at any subsequent/later stage of development.

Some of us think it's not yet equal enough to what will develop, that it has rights.

And I have merely stated that such thought is not provable scientifically. We can merely assume the point of development at which rights attach, but we cannot know. And since we cannot know, then by definition, we can be wrong.

You attach a meaning to that which the other people don't think is there. We have different worldviews that drive this difference in opinion. It's clearly subjective. But you still seem to assert that it's not.

Where have I ever asserted that what is subjective is not subjective?

I've not once said that I am correct in assuming that the right to life attaches to even the two-celled zygote stage of development. Rather, I have said that, since the point at which rights attach is unknowable, then we are least likely to deny rights unjustly by assuming attachment of rights as early as possible.

That statement is not subjective, is not religiously based/biased, and does not derive from any particular worldview. It is merely a logical conclusion.

 

[jamil]

I didn't say that you are an Alinskyite. I said that you used an Alinsky tactic - and that is because you did. You are trying to shoehorn my logical argumentation into a box bounded by your claims of my religious bias, thereby forcing me to "play by my own rulebook." As long as you keep insisting that people who hold religious beliefs by necessity must be presenting arguments that are biased by those beliefs, I will continue to call it out for what it is: logical fallacy.

I wasn't going to reply until this. I think it's pointless. I think you're mistaking something that is truely subjective for something that's "the science".

But anyway, since you're still in "hunting hewatics" mode, I'm gonna reply. It's not a tactic. I believe that your opinion on this is derived from your Christian worldview. If you doubt that then you should be able to produce some evidence that a religious person is no more likely to make the "at conception" argument than a secular person. Or maybe direct me to a reasonable survey of biologists who have a secular worldview that also have the "at conception" worldview. I am not trying to box you in. I don't know how many times I've posted that I assert this to you and others who hold this view, to get you to see that this is not as black and white as your worldview makes you think. That is all. And yes, I do believe your worldview biases you to your viewpoint, like mine biases me to mine.

 

[chipbennett]

I wasn't going to reply until this. I think it's pointless. I think you're mistaking something that is truely subjective for something that's "the science".

But anyway, since you're still in "hunting hewatics" mode, I'm gonna reply. It's not a tactic. I believe that your opinion on this is derived from your Christian worldview. If you doubt that then you should be able to produce some evidence that a religious person is no more likely to make the "at conception" argument than a secular person. Or maybe direct me to a reasonable survey of biologists who have a secular worldview that also have the "at conception" worldview. I am not trying to box you in. I don't know how many times I've posted that I assert this to you and others who hold this view, to get you to see that this is not as black and white as your worldview makes you think. That is all. And yes, I do believe your worldview biases you to your viewpoint, like mine biases me to mine.

I'm not making an "at conception" argument in this thread.

I don't need to prove the basis of arguments being made by other people who are not me. My position and arguments in this thread are not dependent upon nor limited by the beliefs of secular or religious biologists.

So, thank you for making my point for me.

If you want to be done with the "Alinsky" talk, perhaps consider discussing the statements I'm actually making, instead of dismissing them based on your claims of their bias/basis.

 

[jamil]

"Genetic instructions" are DNA. A zygote has DNA, but is not, itself, DNA. So, that line thinking is inconsistent with basic, scientific fact. Holding that view requires ignoring what most of us learned in biology as freshman in high school.

Maybe you don't understand the point. Because a zygote has DNA doesn't mean that it must have rights. You're the one imposing that link. And that's your opinion. So don't accuse me of making arguments I'm not making. High school biology has nothing to do with it. No one is denying the biology.

Wait: what? When did I say that? A human at the two-celled zygote stage of development is merely a human at the earliest stage of human development. It clearly isn't at any subsequent/later stage of development.

I think we probably can't have a reasonable discussion. You haven't addressed the point because I don't think you even see it.

And I have merely stated that such thought is not provable scientifically. We can merely assume the point of development at which rights attach, but we cannot know. And since we cannot know, then by definition, we can be wrong.

That's a fair case to make. Of many cases that can be made. I think you're trying to make this as black and white as you have conceived in your mind.

Where have I ever asserted that what is subjective is not subjective?

I've not once said that I am correct in assuming that the right to life attaches to even the two-celled zygote stage of development. Rather, I have said that, since the point at which rights attach is unknowable, then we are least likely to deny rights unjustly by assuming attachment of rights as early as possible.

That statement is not subjective, is not religiously based/biased, and does not derive from any particular worldview. It is merely a logical conclusion.

I'm not going to take the time to go back and point out your first elmer fudd moment. But you were quite forceful in your insistence that "it's science! You heritic!". And before you shake your head, "I never said those exact words". It's hyperbole to make the point. But no. You're stating facts of science to make an opinion about rights.