Originally Posted by annla899

Sanders could never run, really, as he's a Socialist. Feingold's too liberal for many Dems and for the country in general. HRC is probably pretty darn tired at this point. Maybe Andrew Cuomo? He's a governor of a large state with a high approval rating. He's no Xer, but a Boomer/Joneser--born in '57, the same year as I was.

What about the VP - Joe Biden (November, 1942)?

James50

If Obama did decide not to run again, this would create a considerable opportunity. The last time something like that happened was in 1968. In my opinion, the only thing that prevented a second President Kennedy being elected that year was an assassin's bullet. Robert Kennedy would not have come with the inherited Vietnam baggage that Humphrey did and I think he could have beaten Nixon, especially with George Wallace muddying the waters as he did.

Forget Bernie Sanders; he's too old and he's not a Democrat, and anyway his place is in the Senate. I can't point to a front-runner at this point. If Obama is going to do this and leave his party a chance to retain the White House, he really should do it pretty soon.

Originally Posted by antichrist

BUT what about poor folks, or retired folks, or anyone who can't afford to pony up something like 10-15k per year? It's hugely intrusive if you can't afford it.

Poor folks already have insurance (Medicaid) and don't have to purchase any more. Retired folks over age 65 also have insurance (Medicare) and don't have to buy any more. Most of the rest of the people already have insurance too. The law targets those who do not have insurance, and provides subsidies to make it affordable for working and middle class people who do not have insurance. Most would welcome this subsidized insurance. The people who are being forced to purchase something they don't want or need are relatively well-off healthy people without insurance who can afford to buy insurance but choose not to because of the low risk they will need it at present.

Not having car insurance is easy to solve if you can't afford it. Ditch the car.

In many parts of the country that is not an option for many people. Car insurance requirements ARE coercive. The argument is that the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from mandating that people buy a private product, but not the states. The states are free to do, so we have car insurance laws and Romneycare.

Originally Posted by James50

What about the VP - Joe Biden (November, 1942)?

James50

Highly unlikely. Past prime -- way past prime. Elderly Adaptives have shown themselves unfit leaders at the top of the structure of civilian or military leadership. I think of James Buchanan, Paul von Hindenberg, Philippe Petain, and Donald Rumsfeld -- these fellows are just too trusting of nominal subordinates who prove cut-throats who gut their formal authority for their own agendas. From childhood, Adaptive generations grow up trusting older Idealist, Reactive, and Civic adults to do the right thing in a Crisis Era or else fail so catastrophically that their influence ends. After the Crisis the younger generations who did not know the Crisis have been able to get away with non-Crisis behavior. Looking Out for #1, a title of a best-selling self-help guide of the 2T/3T cusp popular among Boomers and Generation X, perfectly fits the philosophy of an unprincipled opportunist. Such would not have been encouraged reading material among people expected to storm the beaches of Normandy.

Callow opportunists often find ways to charm their way into the coterie of someone who trusts too much. Adaptive leaders need Adaptive partners to be effective. It's not that the elderly Adaptive is a fool or incompetent... most were spectacularly effective at one time. But that was when the people who nominally aided them really were genuine allies who wouldn't do something that looks supportive but is in fact an attempt to wrest covert power. I call it the King Lear syndrome.

Sure, Nancy Pelosi seems an exception -- but she is one of 435, and the House of Representatives isn't as hierarchical and centralized as the Executive Branch.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yep. Not about liberty at all, except on our side. Of course, if we all agreed that what was in the womb in the early stages was a person, then there'd be no debate at all . . .

Personhood doesn't really decide the matter. The anti-abortion position requires one to believe that a woman who gets pregnant is transformed into a baby factory owned by society at large, and the woman henceforth has no say in whether or not she will serve in this capacity. Who cares if the fetus is a person? You still have to justify enslaving the woman to provide sustenance for the fetus.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Which anti-abortion folks are taking it that far, i.e. working towards legislation which would outlaw birth control?

Well, there is this for example. Similar legislation has been floated in quite a few states. So, in fact, there's quite a movement toward banning some forms of birth control (and restricting the availability of, and awareness of, the rest).

If Obama pulled out I think Hillary would probably jump in--and probably lose. However, I do not think he will do so.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

If Obama pulled out I think Hillary would probably jump in--and probably lose. However, I do not think he will do so.

I fully expect Obama top run for a second term.

However, if he didn't I would eagerly support Howard Dean.
I wouldn't support Hillary, at least not in the primary process. She represents too much of the corporatist wing of the Democratic party for my tastes.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

They're in the same general ballpark. In any case, you're using the same rhetoric that other libertarians and anarchists have tried on me in the past. I don't find it convincing.

Not only are they not in the same ballpark, they aren't even the same sport.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I actually do value individual freedom a great deal. But I also value justice, and sometimes that means that a few individuals get their toes stepped on.

It doesn't sound like you even know what individual freedom is, let alone value it. What you appear to value is the feeling of comfort you get by not being free at all. You have bought into the American version of "freedom" which isn't freedom. It's a euphemism for the same old, time-honored ruler/ruled relationship that the rulers would have you believe is necessary for your very survival.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

If you'd like to have a rational conversation with me about my actual philosophy, and how I try to balance freedom with justice, fantastic.

Ahhh yes. Please show me my "irrational side." In lieu of that, please do explain how you balance freedom and justice in your own life.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Have been paying attention to Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida? Hidden agendas become real when they can.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Please provide the specific legislation in Wisconsin that has been proposed that outlaws birth control. Otherwise the above and Odins post simply is nothing more than fear mongering.

Originally Posted by The Rani

No. Enlighten me.
If you want to compare mandatory health care insurance to outlawing birth control, you'll have to prove something more than a hidden agenda.

Apparently we're having difficulty with analogies today. Let me be less subtle:

• We have a pretty good idea what the Hard Right believes, since they tell us in exhausting detail at every opportunity.
• We don't know what these people will do if they're given the chance, but their anti-labor, anti-taxes performances in Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida offer good guidance.
• We do know that they have tried to outlaw abortion numerous times ... even though the SCOTUS has repeatedly slapped them down.
• We also know that the Catholics are not the only ones who believe that we should go forth and multiply. After all, contraception has been illegal during my lifetime.
• But most importantly, there is at least one group working hard on this.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The Religious Right is now very definitely trying to put Planned Parenthood entirely out of business. If they actually favored birth control other than abortion I do not think they would be doing that.

A segment of the country not wanting their tax dollars paying for something they vehemently disagree with on moral grounds is hardly the same as actively working to outlaw it.

I find your arguments on this a bit ironic Dave. Did you not basically say earlier this year that no one was seriously trying to enact gun control in the United States and thus it was a waste of time worrying about it?

Just heard about this story and looked up the quote. It's from Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and it is what counts as a gaffe--a politician actually saying what he thinks. It's. . .rather revealing.

"Asked if he thinks Obama’s policies show he wants to destroy the country, Coburn said:

“No, I don’t... He’s a very bright man. But think about his life. And think about what he was exposed to and what he saw in America. He’s only relating what his experience in life was...

“His intent isn’t to destroy. It’s to create dependency because it worked so well for him. I don’t say that critically. Look at people for what they are. Don’t assume ulterior motives. I don’t think he doesn’t love our country. I think he does.

“As an African American male, coming through the progress of everything he experienced, he got tremendous benefit through a lot of these programs. So he believes in them. I just don’t believe they work overall and in the long run they don’t help our country. But he doesn’t know that because his life experience is something different. So it’s very important not to get mad at the man. And I understand, his philosophy — there’s nothing wrong with his philosophy other than it’s goofy and wrong [laughter] — but that doesn’t make him a bad person.”

Who said racism was dead?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Just heard about this story and looked up the quote. It's from Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and it is what counts as a gaffe--a politician actually saying what he thinks. It's. . .rather revealing.

"Asked if he thinks Obama’s policies show he wants to destroy the country, Coburn said:

“No, I don’t... He’s a very bright man. But think about his life. And think about what he was exposed to and what he saw in America. He’s only relating what his experience in life was...

“His intent isn’t to destroy. It’s to create dependency because it worked so well for him. I don’t say that critically. Look at people for what they are. Don’t assume ulterior motives. I don’t think he doesn’t love our country. I think he does.

“As an African American male, coming through the progress of everything he experienced, he got tremendous benefit through a lot of these programs. So he believes in them. I just don’t believe they work overall and in the long run they don’t help our country. But he doesn’t know that because his life experience is something different. So it’s very important not to get mad at the man. And I understand, his philosophy — there’s nothing wrong with his philosophy other than it’s goofy and wrong [laughter] — but that doesn’t make him a bad person.”

Who said racism was dead?

This appeals to those who really believed that welfare queen with a cadillac talk and how everyone on welfare is black and that the only way black folks succeeded at anything was because of affirmative action. Coburn seems to know his base. How come nobody said that about Clinton, whose background was similar? Looks like maybe we aren't all that post-racial, eh?

A new study says that most Tea Party folks are stereotypical right-wing social conservative Republicans.

FIVE YEARS AGO, IN 2006, DAVID E. CAMPBELL AND ROBERT D. PUTNAM INTERVIEWED 3,000 AMERICANS and re-interviewed many of the same people again this summer. Their findings indicate what most of us already knew: that Teapartyers were far-right, social conservative Republicans (and still are). Or, as Jon Stewart said: “They’re just moral majorities in a tri-cornered hat.”

[W]e can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later…

Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.

What’s more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.

As so many have been arguing for the past 3 years, priority #1 is not small government with these people! So what do (rank and file) Tea Partiers have in common (from 2006 through today):

• They’re white and
  
• have a low regard for immigrants and blacks (*ahem* racist?!)
  
• are disproportionately social conservatives
• have a desire to see religion play a prominent role in politics
  
• seek deeply religious elected officials
• approve of religious leaders engaging in politics
• want religion brought into political debates

Absolutely no surprise. They’re the same weird, eccentric group of religious RWNJs with a brand new Koch-funded name: Tea Party Patriots. What rubbish. They have always wanted a form of government for the USA that’s a straight-up Christian Theocracy, and nothing has changed.

Sometimes it seems that teahadists needs to be reminded that Jesus Christ was not one of the founding fathers. And, newsflash! Their idea of Christianity is so far removed from mainstream belief that it borders on freakish: Jesus as a gun-toting, white-power, women-belong-in-the-kitchen, immigrant-hating, ‘get your own wine and fish’ conservative Deity, who gladly puts the world on hold to personally speak with politicians like GWB, Perry, Bachmann and Palin.

But here’s what’s funny — people have already figured out the teaparty:

Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News survey found that 18 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it, 21 percent had a favorable opinion and 46 percent had not heard enough. Now, 14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to 20 percent, while their opponents have more than doubled, to 40 percent.

[...] the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.” Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.

Read the rest….

With the growing disapproval of the teaparty in general, it’s nice to know that most of us ARE actually using the brains God gave us.

They are the same religious nut-jobs that have dominated the GOP since Reagan.

Originally Posted by Odin

A new study says that most Tea Party folks are stereotypical right-wing social conservative Republicans.



They are the same religious nut-jobs that have dominated the GOP since Reagan.

The roots go deep. This is a part of the American electorate that goes back to at least the time of the Know Nothing Party, perhaps earlier. They are populist, they are sure of the rightness of their positions and they can be made to vote against their own self interest again and again, for yes generation after generation.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Just heard about this story and looked up the quote. It's from Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and it is what counts as a gaffe--a politician actually saying what he thinks. It's. . .rather revealing.

"Asked if he thinks Obama’s policies show he wants to destroy the country, Coburn said:

“No, I don’t... He’s a very bright man. But think about his life. And think about what he was exposed to and what he saw in America. He’s only relating what his experience in life was...

“His intent isn’t to destroy. It’s to create dependency because it worked so well for him. I don’t say that critically. Look at people for what they are. Don’t assume ulterior motives. I don’t think he doesn’t love our country. I think he does.

“As an African American male, coming through the progress of everything he experienced, he got tremendous benefit through a lot of these programs. So he believes in them. I just don’t believe they work overall and in the long run they don’t help our country. But he doesn’t know that because his life experience is something different. So it’s very important not to get mad at the man. And I understand, his philosophy — there’s nothing wrong with his philosophy other than it’s goofy and wrong [laughter] — but that doesn’t make him a bad person.”

Who said racism was dead?

It is hard to believe that someone with such demanding prerequisites for his career before becoming a politician -- a physician -- could say something so stupid.

First, President Obama has not pushed the expansion of welfare as a solution to any of the core realities of American economic life. Face it -- he's black, and he could never get away with it! As a child he seems to have not been subjected to American poverty, urban stereotype. He has about as much early exposure to the full nastiness of ghetto life as Senator Coburn has -- none. As a child he always seemed to have direction and purpose, which is very middle class.

Maybe the time that he spent as a community organizer gave him some insight into the fullest nastiness of poverty, American urban style... probably enough to show him that poverty alone does not create a vileness of character.

Barack Obama could have taken some other course in life, and he wouldn't be so visible. Corporate law is far more lucrative than what he chose as a legal specialty; corporate law firms dangle huge amounts of money before the best and brightest law-school grads, which is one way to ensure that most of the more adept parts of the legal profession isn't doing something deleterious to Big Business -- like serving left-wing advocacy causes or becoming ambulance-chasers. He went into politics in Chicago, and there he had plenty of opportunity to become part of the machine... a nice token... and perhaps get rich off corruption. The Chicago machine encouraged him to go to the Illinois State Senate.

Don't worry about him getting rich; he will. He will have plenty of books to write, and he is going to make huge money on the lecture circuit after his Presidency is over.... unless he does something foolish to throw away such lucrative activities so that he can become a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Race is a reality in American politics, and there are some things that this President can't get away with.

Originally Posted by James50

Holy smokes! Is it possible that Obama could simply quit? I thought of this the night he announced Bin Laden's death, but it was just my gut trying to make sense of a sudden White House announcement.


Here

Well, OK, let's do the thought experiment. Late this year, before New Hampshire or Iowa, Obama comes on TV some Sunday night like LBJ did in 1968 and says he is not running. Instead he says he will devote himself to real deficit reduction that would bring entitlements under control and make his re-election impossible.

He wouldn't do that; that's not where his heart is. Social Security is easy, and nothing needs to be done for over 20 years anyway. Medical programs are impossible to be fixed because the solutions are beyond Republican approval.

So who becomes the front-runner? Hillary Clinton? Russ Feingold? Bernie Sanders? Come on all you lefties with S&H in your back pockets out there, give me a hand. What would happen then?

James50

Hillary, of course.

More breaking news -

Rabid Dog Briefly Mistaken for Tea Party Candidate
Receives Standing Ovation at Missouri Rally

JEFFERSON CITY, MO (The Borowitz Report) – A rabid Doberman Pinscher jumped on stage at a Tea Party rally in Missouri on Labor Day and barked at the crowd for nearly twenty minutes before people realized he was not a candidate.

The dog, later identified by its owner as “Mister Buster,” held the crowd spellbound as he barked, growled, and frothed at the mouth, eventually receiving a standing ovation for his exertions.

Gwendolene Thomason, 42, a Tea Party supporter from Jefferson City, was one of the hundreds on hand who were convinced that the Doberman was a Tea Party candidate until he was outed as a dog.

“I liked what he had to say,” she said. ”He reminded me of Glenn Beck, only furrier.”

The Doberman’s canine identity finally became clear when he lunged at a man in the front row and wrested a hamburger from his right hand, taking two of the man’s fingers with it.

While the discovery that Mister Buster was not a Tea Party candidate disappointed many in attendance, Ms. Thomason held out hope that, dog or no, he might consider running for office at some point.

“I liked the way he bit off that guy’s hand, and the way he did his business in the middle of the stage,” she said. ”We need more of that in Washington.”

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2010/0...rty-candidate/

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Personhood doesn't really decide the matter. The anti-abortion position requires one to believe that a woman who gets pregnant is transformed into a baby factory owned by society at large, and the woman henceforth has no say in whether or not she will serve in this capacity. Who cares if the fetus is a person? You still have to justify enslaving the woman to provide sustenance for the fetus.

True. Personhood shifts the question, however, to one of a trade-off of rights -- which is, itself, a very sticky situation. After all, pretty much all cultures hold to the norm that it is right to hold parents captive to the needs of their already-born minor children (whether by meeting those needs themselves, or by arranging for those needs to be met by another). So the idea of extending that period of captivity back in time to cover whatever period prior to birth the fetus is determined to be a 'person' isn't really a qualitative shift. It's just an adjustment of boundaries that are already there.

But non-personhood -- which is the position that the pro-abortion side is already on -- does neatly and clearly resolve the manner. So being able to conclusively (or at least as conclusively as epistemology permits ) answer the person/nonperson question would leave us at worst no further from a solution than we are now, and might potentially be the solution itself. And in any case, we'd at least be talking politics and ethics about matters that are directly founded in the two. Which would be a major improvement.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

True. Personhood shifts the question, however, to one of a trade-off of rights -- which is, itself, a very sticky situation. After all, pretty much all cultures hold to the norm that it is right to hold parents captive to the needs of their already-born minor children (whether by meeting those needs themselves, or by arranging for those needs to be met by another). So the idea of extending that period of captivity back in time to cover whatever period prior to birth the fetus is determined to be a 'person' isn't really a qualitative shift. It's just an adjustment of boundaries that are already there.

But non-personhood -- which is the position that the pro-abortion side is already on -- does neatly and clearly resolve the manner. So being able to conclusively (or at least as conclusively as epistemology permits ) answer the person/nonperson question would leave us at worst no further from a solution than we are now, and might potentially be the solution itself. And in any case, we'd at least be talking politics and ethics about matters that are directly founded in the two. Which would be a major improvement.

Even the concept of personhood vs nonpersonhood is not useful because the definition of person is not agreed upon. For example, I looked it up in Wikipedia and it says a person is a human being. Then I looked up human being in Dictionary.com and it says a person. Not very useful.

The definition in wiki goes further and talks about agency and self-awareness. If agnecy is a requirement that leaves out classes of individuals who lack agency (e.g. comatose patients, newborn infants, profounded disabled, etc) yet are usually thought of as persons.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Even the concept of personhood vs nonpersonhood is not useful because the definition of person is not agreed upon.

That was the point of what I said. The fundamental metaphysical question, "what is a person?" is the only way we're going to come to a solution to the problem.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Personhood doesn't really decide the matter. The anti-abortion position requires one to believe that a woman who gets pregnant is transformed into a baby factory owned by society at large, and the woman henceforth has no say in whether or not she will serve in this capacity. Who cares if the fetus is a person? You still have to justify enslaving the woman to provide sustenance for the fetus.

No, I don't think that's true. We have laws requiring parents to support their already-born children and punishing infanticide as murder. Most states have restrictions or at least partial bans on late-term abortion as well. The principle that parents have an obligation to provide sustenance and other support for their children is well established and not really controversial at all. The conflict is over whether to treat an early-pregnancy embryo or fetus in the same way as a born child. If we do, then the mother has an obligation to keep it alive. If not, then her own right to self-determination becomes primary.

Mike: Of course it isn't "useful." Nothing can usefully resolve this issue. It's a core-values thing. Not all questions are objective questions of fact.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yep. Not about liberty at all, except on our side. Of course, if we all agreed that what was in the womb in the early stages was a person, then there'd be no debate at all . . .

Personhood doesn't really decide the matter. The anti-abortion position requires one to believe that a woman who gets pregnant is transformed into a baby factory owned by society at large, and the woman henceforth has no say in whether or not she will serve in this capacity. Who cares if the fetus is a person? You still have to justify enslaving the woman to provide sustenance for the fetus.

No, I don't think that's true. We have laws requiring parents to support their already-born children and punishing infanticide as murder. Most states have restrictions or at least partial bans on late-term abortion as well. The principle that parents have an obligation to provide sustenance and other support for their children is well established and not really controversial at all. The conflict is over whether to treat an early-pregnancy embryo or fetus in the same way as a born child. If we do, then the mother has an obligation to keep it alive. If not, then her own right to self-determination becomes primary.

Mike: Of course it isn't "useful." Nothing can usefully resolve this issue. It's a core-values thing. Not all questions are objective questions of fact.

None of you get the issue. A woman's body does not belong to society. What's inside of it is fundamentally an extension of her and no one has the legitimate authority to dictate what is done with it any more than they have the legitimate authority to force a woman to carry a mammalian tumor. Now working class women will have abortions regardless. (I say working class because wealthier women have never had a problem obtaining safe abortions. So this issue is really about working class women being indentured to society to produce more workers/soldiers.) So the question becomes and always has been if we are honest: will we criminalize this behavior and endanger the lives of women who will find less than safe means to obtain abortions? If you are fundamentally anti-woman (the position most anti-abortion teams come from) then the answer is easy.

P.S. The late-term abortion argument is a distraction. There are so few people attempting to obtain them that it's really just an excuse to conflate the issue so that all abortions are associated with them.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

P.S. The late-term abortion argument is a distraction. There are so few people attempting to obtain them that it's really just an excuse to conflate the issue so that all abortions are associated with them.

That may be how a pro-lifer would use it. (Actually, never mind the "may be," because I've seen them do that.) It's not how I'm using it. I am not a "pro-lifer." I believe that abortion should remain legal and draw a very hard line between early and late-term abortion. When I say that late-term abortion should be illegal except in medically-necessary circumstances, I mean exactly what I say and nothing else. I am not using that as excuse to conflate the issue so that all abortions are associated, because that is not going a place I want to go.

A woman's body, like a man's, does not exclusively belong to any one person including herself. I don't buy that argument at all. No rights are absolute and unqualified by obligations to others. It's always a trade-off, a balancing of one versus another. Parents have a powerful obligation to support their children, and you can call that an obligation to society or to the children themselves, either one is arguable, but when children are brought into the world a huge obligation is created. At some very early stages, a child is inside the mother's body. That does not change the obligation; it exists as soon as the developing fetus becomes a "person." The question is entirely about when that happens.

I believe abortion should be legal in the early stages of pregnancy because I don't believe that a developing organism without a functioning cerebral cortex should be considered a human being, and so a woman's right to determine for herself whether she will become a mother is not compromised at that stage by obligations to a child. In the early stages, abortion is just an extension of contraception, a way to prevent a child from being. As long as abortion is legal and available in the early stages of pregnancy, a pregnant woman has plenty of time to resort to it and outlawing late-term abortion except for medical reasons would not be a serious hardship.

But I recognize that some people believe, for whatever reason, that an embryo is a person from the moment of conception, and it's consistent with that belief to say that abortion should be outlawed, period. If I thought an embryo at conception was a person, I would advocate that abortion be outlawed. Since I don't, I don't.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

None of you get the issue. A woman's body does not belong to society. What's inside of it is fundamentally an extension of her...

Except that you argument presupposes the fact that what is growing inside her is not a person. And the part about the woman not belonging to society isn't exactly true in the way you want it to be. As mentioned above, a woman is considered to be enslaved to her minor children in the sense of being personally responsible for their care. This is not only a legal, bu also a cultural near-universal -- enough so that it is safe to consider it likely a fundamental fact of who we are as creatures.

So if your presupposition is in fact not correct... if the thing growing inside a woman's body is a person (and further, the class of person 'minor child' who is reliant on her to sustain its life)... then extending the period of her enslavement to the child back to include some time prior to its emergence from her body as a relatively-more-viable entity would be a conclusion perfectly in accord with 'right', defined with respect to the nature of us as humans and as people.

It really all comes back to that issue of what constitutes 'person'. And based on the answer to that question... both disparate conclusions can necessarily follow.

You seem to be the one not getting the issue. You cannot reasonably decide questions of fact (or whatever approximation of fact our answer would give) via the tools of politics. That's not what they are for.

-----
-edit-
dammit. Brian beat me to it this time.