Opinion on the Roe v. Wade Leak

[temporal1]

Simultaneously.
Legal arguments for animals to gain “human rights.”

Make no mistake. Animal rights lobbies+politically organized blocs are formidable in courts. Powerful+monied.
(i don’t believe) unborn humans have equivalent representation.

It’s puzzling how these cases, animal rights cases versus unborn human rights cases, carry on simultaneously, with no evident legal overlap. Animals appear to gain legal ground much more easily, with far far less public brouhaha.
(i believe) this is due to lobbies+politically organized blocs. these are key to advancing the now normalized: minority rule.

“Happy is an Asian elephant. But is she also a person?”
https://apnews.com/article/bronx-zoo-el ... c0f0c72743

“Appeals court says chimpanzees don’t have rights of people”
https://apnews.com/article/86c7e1f9a4fa ... 61778c33c2

“US judge: Pablo Escobar’s cocaine hippos legally ‘people’ “
https://apnews.com/article/hippos-anima ... dabce56726

2014 / New Zealand / “Recognition of animal sentience and prohibition of animal suffering”
https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/c ... ew-zealand

Since the API was first published in 2014, New Zealand has included animal sentience into law, as part of the long title to the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

New Zealand should lead by example since it acknowledges that vertebrates, decapods and cephalopod crustaceans are sentient.

New Zealand is another example of how political activists deliberately target small, remote courts to establish LEGAL PRECEDENCE, then use those outwardly isolated cases to push that agenda further+further. Another example is in Canada, where Nova Scotia courts can be starting places to establish legal precedent. The initial outward appearance being innocuous. Nope. LEGAL GOLD.

Not happenstance. It’s calculated and effective legal strategy.

Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations.
The word was first coined by philosophers in the 1630s for the concept of an ability to feel, derived from Latin sentientem, to distinguish it from the ability to think.

In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations.
Wikipedia

[Falco Underhill]

What is the legal end game here? Is it to have animals legally recognized as persons? Is it just to get the whole concept of persons so scrambled that it becomes meaningless?

It's a little wacky, isn't it? I don't think the courts could demonstrate how such a right meets the criteria set out by the leaked draft.

[temporal1]

What is the legal end game here?
What do you suppose is their purpose in having courts recognize animals as persons?
Is it just to get the whole concept so scrambled that it becomes meaningless?

Far be it from me to understand!

Over decades the world has witnessed PETA, Save the Whales, many others, get right into courts of law.
Neto sometimes refers to Animism. Animism meets law schools?!

Animism (from Latin: anima, 'breath, spirit, life') is the belief that objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence. Potentially, animism perceives all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork, and perhaps even words—as animated and alive.
wiki

i have met people who quietly express they prefer animals to humans. understandable.
but taking it to high courts, worship of animals? there is a lot of support for these things, much of it’s promoted in the DOE.

it’s unsettling.
for me, i shake my head at the exaggerated passion readily mustered for every imaginable animal interest [in some instances FEATHERS are federally protected!] - versus equal passion dedicated to destruction of innocent human life.
these things exist in the same world.

those 2 things “do a number” on my head.

[temporal1]

“Heartbeat.” “Sentient beings.”

Some words are intended to hold powerful weight in human courts of law in determining whether it’s ok to kill human life.
A simple review of how courts rule on these various ANIMAL RIGHTS cases immediately reveals, everything about human existence, sentient or not, is uniquely human.

Always human, nothing else.
The sperm+egg are human, and nothing else, BEFORE conception. The distinct new life begins at conception. A molecular wild+crazy moment. On full display via real time medical photography. Conception does not result from dead sperm/eggs. It’s all living, it’s all human. And nothing else.

Thus (in my view) compromising to agree, “life begins at conception,” is probably ok. (in God’s view.) i’m not 100% sure.
Life begins at conception, or before. i’m pretty sure, from what is found in scriptures.

In my mind, human courts cannot do what they do FOR animals in ways they do, while ruling AGAINST unborn humans in ways they do.

Save the Storks
https://savethestorks.com/2018/01/birds ... n-america/

[Ken]

What is the legal end game here? Is it to have animals legally recognized as persons? Is it just to get the whole concept of persons so scrambled that it becomes meaningless?

It's a little wacky, isn't it? I don't think the courts could demonstrate how such a right meets the criteria set out by the leaked draft.

Well, we already have accepted the bizarre notion that corporations are people. Why not animals?

The end-game isn't about defining these things as "humans" The end game is about recognizing that these different non-human entities (corporations, wildlife, etc.) have interests that merit defending in court. Legally the term "person" is different from the term "human"

[temporal1]

What is the legal end game here? Is it to have animals legally recognized as persons?
Is it just to get the whole concept of persons so scrambled that it becomes meaningless?

It's a little wacky, isn't it? I don't think the courts could demonstrate how such a right meets the criteria set out by the leaked draft.

Possibly, of ALL present disordered and out-of-order thinking is the matter of normalizing the notion of abortion to children+teens. It’s definitely underway in gov schools+healthcare. Right under everyone’s noses.

Why does it matter?

For DECADES, psychiatry, education, law enforcement have recognized a link between children+teens who harm animals with future violence, including the extreme: serial killers. Uncontested.

It’s important to protect+nurture children’s and teen’s INBORN nature to protect vulnerable life (all ages, all stages, human, animal, plant). A healthy child/teen will protect and value life, and the vulnerable. They can fight hard for it! And be sorrowful if they witness harm done. (don’t ask how i know.)

So, here we have established fact. Uncontested.
Along comes for-profit abortion corporations with (literal) storybooks about how it’s wonderful to abort innocent human life.

i cannot be convinced this is in any way acceptable. i believe it’s disordered in the worst sense of the word.

in the U.S., gov schools+libraries are normalizing this. it’s evil. it should be criminal.

There is a lot written on it.

Children Who Are Cruel to Animals: When to Worry
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... when-worry

Animal Cruelty Information for Parents/Concerned Neighbors
https://spcala.com/programs-services/hu ... neighbors/

Childhood Cruelty to Cats, Dogs and Other Animals - Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/9/1/48.full.pdf

[Falco Underhill]

What is the legal end game here? Is it to have animals legally recognized as persons? Is it just to get the whole concept of persons so scrambled that it becomes meaningless?

It's a little wacky, isn't it? I don't think the courts could demonstrate how such a right meets the criteria set out by the leaked draft.

Well, we already have accepted the bizarre notion that corporations are people. Why not animals?

The end-game isn't about defining these things as "humans" The end game is about recognizing that these different non-human entities (corporations, wildlife, etc.) have interests that merit defending in court. Legally the term "person" is different from the term "human"

To my mind "person" should just remain synonymous with "human." Otherwise it would lead to legal absurdities. "We the people" would suddenly include animals. Animals would suddenly qualify for voting rights, etc. ...

Whatever people argue about rudimentary capacities to "think" and of self-awareness animals might have, they don't have full capacities and it's highly unlikeky they ever will.

I'm all for animals' rights but I prefer not to muddle our language and therefore our perceptions of reality over it.

[temporal1]

Falco:
“legal absurdities”

That’s it.

The powerful+monied not-human, not-humane, organized political blocs are all about LEGAL ABSURDITIES.
Why scriptures warn against the pitfalls of human reasoning. On its own, a sure path to destruction.

[barnhart]

What is the legal end game here? Is it to have animals legally recognized as persons? Is it just to get the whole concept of persons so scrambled that it becomes meaningless?

It's a little wacky, isn't it? I don't think the courts could demonstrate how such a right meets the criteria set out by the leaked draft.

Well, we already have accepted the bizarre notion that corporations are people. Why not animals?

The end-game isn't about defining these things as "humans" The end game is about recognizing that these different non-human entities (corporations, wildlife, etc.) have interests that merit defending in court. Legally the term "person" is different from the term "human"

I drove home behind a bumper sticker that said "Pets are people too!"

[temporal1]

I drove home behind a bumper sticker that said "Pets are people too!"

Page 4 / “Furbabies?”
viewtopic.php?f=4&hilit=furbabies&p=121 ... bb38e7b8f6

Babylon Bee
2020 / Democrats Erupt In Protests After Planned Parenthood Begins Offering Puppy Abortions
https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-e ... -abortions

U.S.—Democrats have finally turned on Planned Parenthood after the organization announced its new puppy abortion program.

Many thought Democrats would defend anything and everything Planned Parenthood does, but it seems they've finally done something Democrats are willing to criticize: killing puppies in the womb.

The abortions for dogs are performed under the organization's new "Planned Puppyhood" program. Planned Parenthood calls the program "Female Dog Healthcare" and says it is necessary for a dog's health and emotional well-being. "Her litter, her choice," the program's slogan goes. "Kill puppies -- no matter what." They will also be selling aborted puppy parts to the highest bidder.

"This is outrageous!" shouted one protester at a Portland Planned Parenthood clinic. "Planned Parenthood is murdering precious little dogs, pretending that it's just canine healthcare. They are participating in a modern-day holocaust that will end millions of cute little puppy lives. They are profiting off the murder of the unborn puppies. This is totally out of character for them! I can't believe they would do something like this."

Democrats say they will end their protests if Planned Parenthood agrees to go back to just killing human babies.

.. They will also be selling aborted puppy parts to the highest bidder. ..

This is really “out there.”
It would immediately conflict with regulations on animals used for research.