Asking questions about abortions : does the government have a case?

Fred Showker
May 20 · 7 min read

How about some feed-back on this article. Doesn’t it seem logical, and smart that there are only TWO faces to the abortion argument? Don’t get me wrong, I’m only asking questions.
1. The government stays out of it, or
2. The government has something to do with it.

So those are the two conditions surrounding the abortion argument?

Wouldn’t you agree that all the other arguments surrounding abortion are just for discussion and people’s self gratification? Don’t all the talking points have to do with morals and humanity as opposed to government’s actual intervention? Isn’t it true that arguments cannot involve the government until the baby is recognized by the government? Are abortions mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights?

Can the government control or litigate something that they cannot identify? Should they be allowed to?

What everyone, including the media, the government, and 100% of the politicians fail to remember is the Federal Government is already very clear on the matter of who a person is.

Isn’t it true that, according to law, the day a baby is assigned with a birth certificate is the day that a new human exists in the government’s eyes? Has it been tested millions of times, in court, that NOTHING can happen until that moment in terms of government involvement? Does that mean that until then, that baby does not exist? Does that mean the unborn baby cannot apply for any license or interaction with the government for anything? That baby cannot own anything, that baby cannot be insured, that baby is not subject to any ownership of anything nor any tax? Can we prove in court that until the event of a birth certificate, a baby is NOT counted in the system — at all! If there is NO (let me clarify : zero) record of that baby’s existence whatsoever, can that baby be legislated? Have you ever tried to enter the country without a passport? Did you ever try to get a passport without a birth certificate? Maybe you can, but I couldn’t. It’s the first thing they want to see.

Consider very carefully : are we prepared to give Washington the power to litigate and legislate events that haven’t happened yet, or that do not exist?

So, in reality, and legally, can the government have anything to do with the projected entity until the government itself has declared that a baby has become identifiable? What evidence do they present to prove this is a person who can be litigated?

Let’s put this to a test and see if we can figure out how this works in accordance with existing law.

In order for the government to litigate or legislate anything, must it first be required to demonstrate proof that the subject exists? If yes, then wouldn’t it be required to assign an unborn entity a name, and possibly a social security number PRIOR TO the first actual breath as a HUMAN? Wouldn’t that mean that from the moment of inception, that entity can : have a life insurance policy, own tangible property, enter into any number of contracts, have a passport (without a photo), collect unemployment, and enjoy all the benefits of being a U.S. citizen … IN THE WOMB?

For instance, let’s assume the government recognizes the unborn as a citizen. Technically, then the parents should be able to purchase a house in the child’s name. If it turns out to be a miscarriage, then the house would be in the child’s estate, and can be named in the child’s trust and conveyed to the parents or siblings with no taxable consequence, right? Is the IRS gonna buy that? Or, testing the concept, the child could technically bequeath the house to another, yet unborn, entity, right?

What about miscarriages? Was that a citizen?

Can a miscarriage collect on life insurance because the government had deemed it a citizen prior to birth? What about travel? If the government is recognizing that human, in the womb, wouldn’t they require a passport? Wouldn’t Customs and Immigration require to see “the baby’s” papers from the pregnant mom, and or even the Dad? Is she pregnant? What happens when they think she is pregnant, but she is not? How about future lives? If the government legislates that it recognizes the “possibility” of a pregnancy as a condition that can be legislated and litigated, then wouldn’t it stand that they can litigate and legislate “future” conditions, even if they do not exist, or haven’t been invented yet? If they can litigate a condition where a woman may be pregnant, couldn’t they also litigate future pregnancies — say, in children? See where this is going?

Do you think it’s smart to give those idiots in the government that much power?

The big question is, why hasn’t anyone other than me ever asked these questions? Am I that far off base? Why in the world has everyone jumped on one abortion band wagon or another without FIRST asking where the line is drawn by the U.S. Government when it comes to legal involvement in someone’s life? (Or lack of life as it may be.)

So let’s ask the Supreme Court if the government actually prove the entity was alive and a human prior to its birth. So far, it seems like testimony is hear-say until an actual birth takes place and birth certificate is legally produced. A birth certificate exhibits your date of birth, sex, and an undeniable identifier, your foot prints — thus your inalienable rights.

So at the end of the day, the abortion debate is easily solved by the government with one of two decisions :
1) — The government is going to stay out of it, or ….
2) — The government is going to legislate it, and thus must assign birth certificates and possibly social security numbers at the time of an identifiable heart beat.

Everything else is drama, fake news, hysteria, lip service, he said/she said, propaganda, click bait, spam, scam, slander, blasphemy, and/or bullshit or both. Do we really want to open that can of worms? Do we really think the government should have that kind of power?

This post has a comments section, please pick it apart and open the smart discussion! If you have valid picking points, please provide support. Try to keep emotion, drama and hysteria out of the conversation.

You can thank me later . . . and thanks for reading!

SOME BACKGROUND in case you’re still interested:

Our first child was carried for several months and then the doctors said it was no longer viable and must have a “D&C” . . . so does that mean it was or was not recognized by the government as a human. What happened was not even remotely recognizable as a human. What does that mean? Does that mean the government recognizes non-humans as humans even before there is any government proof? Did the doctor commit a crime with the “D&C” ?

A birth certificate is a vital record that documents the birth of a child. The term “birth certificate” can refer to either the original document certifying the circumstances of the birth or to a certified copy of or representation of the ensuing registration of that birth.

What Exact­ly is a Birth Cer­tifi­cate?
Every U.S. citizen born in the United States is required by law to have a birth certificate, which is issued at the time of their birth and formalized within 1 year. U.S. birth certificates are one of several certified vital records proving your citizenship and identity and not having your name on yours can throw your identity into doubt.

A birth certificate is a document issued by a government that records the birth of a child. Without identification, government officials have no documentation of a child’s existence. As a result, the law is incapable of protecting children from crimes and abuse. But effective birth registration protects children and provides them with their legal rights.

If you were born in the United States, your birth certificate is one of your most important identifying documents, necessary for validating your citizenship and often required for functions such as applying for higher education, getting or renewing photo identification such as a passport

In the United States, a Social Security number (SSN) is a nine-digit number issued to U.S. citizens, permanent residents, under section 205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2). Although its primary purpose is to track individuals for Social Security purposes, the Social Security number has become a de facto national identification number for taxation and other purposes

Fred Showker

Written by

Design, Typography & Graphics Magazine and 60-Seconds exploring technology since 1987

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade