Full rights for a embryo

[roguenuke]

You can only claim self-defense if charged with a crime - it’s rather useless otherwise and includes (requires?) due process. Soldiers (or police officers) are not “paid all the time” to take lives without orders (or self-defense reasons) to do so. Soldiers (or police officers) are not granted the power to ‘kill them all and let God sort them out’.

BTW, the father wanting nothing to do with the child can still be ordered by the state to pay 18 years (or more) of child support - earning those funds requires sacrifice of his time and other resources (bodily effort).

You said that you couldn't take a life without due process. That would be due process for the person killed, not the person who killed them. And soldiers are paid to kill people. Doesn't matter "how often" that is done, especially not when your claim, again, was that you can't do that without due process. And yes, soldiers are granted power to kill them all in certain situations. Orders are not due process.

After birth. The father is not required to give any part of their actual body. To put their health or life at risk for the child. Forcing women to remain pregnant does do that, forces them to give another life, their bodily resources directly to the entity. Your described situation is not that. Only an identified father has to pay for the child and how he chooses to do so would come out of the same way he would do so for his own monetary needs.

 

[southwest88]

The problem is what constitutional basis existed for defining (determining?) “early in the pregnancy”? It seem that was decided rather arbitrarily and thus the Roe decision was pure judicial activism.

By British (& thus US) common law, & absent any legislative law on the point, the fetus is not considered a person from a legal POV. Not until he or she is born.

Roe is an attempt to balance the woman's rights & the concerns of the larger society. Thus the woman can opt for an abortion in the first trimester, the state can begin to regulate access to abortion in the second trimester, & the state can ban abortion in the third trimester (except for the health or life of the woman). But read the holding & the history behind it - that would likely answer your questions.

The makeup of the US Supreme Court that held in Roe was mostly appointed by Republican presidents, & was therefore more conservative than liberal, politically. That too is a matter of record. Any good history of Roe will also include the judicial makeup of the SC @ the time.

 

[Scrabaholic]

No one should be legally paid to take the life of another without due process of law.

A zef is not an "other".

 

[Lursa]

No one should be legally paid to take the life of another without due process of law.

And if they're not paid? If Drs do it for free?

The question is more about the ethics of the issue of abortion, rather than the likelihood of free medical procedures. How does it effect the rights of the unborn, which is the OP focus.

 

[Lursa]

The problem is what constitutional basis existed for defining (determining?) “early in the pregnancy”? It seem that was decided rather arbitrarily and thus the Roe decision was pure judicial activism.

Not 'early' in the pregnancy, very late actually. And it had a real benchmark: the ability of the unborn to survive outside the womb.

That is not remotely arbitrary.

 

[Lursa]

No one should be legally paid to take the life of another without due process of law.

There's no way to determine a woman's reproductive status without the probable cause for due process. Women no longer need a Dr to confirm a pregnancy, over the counter tests are very accurate. A woman choosing not to remain pregnant need not tell anyone before taking action (abortion pills, travelling to a place where abortion is legal, etc.)

But if it did happen...then what, exactly, would be the due process? 24/7 supervision of the woman? Investigation of all miscarriages?

I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm providing practical concerns.

 

[Lursa]

BTW, the father wanting nothing to do with the child can still be ordered by the state to pay 18 years (or more) of child support - earning those funds requires sacrifice of his time and other resources (bodily effort).

Not until there is a child. Not during pregnancy.

And he knew the law before he had sex...did he not? Did he not make a decision that he should be held accountable for? He knew the risks. (Yes so did she and birth, abortion, death...all consequences and she has to face at least one of them...she doesnt get out of consequences).

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not 'early' in the pregnancy, very late actually. And it had a real benchmark: the ability of the unborn to survive outside the womb.

That is not remotely arbitrary.

That there are any human (personhood?) rights ‘discovered’ after conception but prior to birth when none are ascribed by the constitution makes it only a matter of (arbitrary?) opinion as to when they should be said to begin.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There's no way to determine a woman's reproductive status without the probable cause for due process. Women no longer need a Dr to confirm a pregnancy, over the counter tests are very accurate. A woman choosing not to remain pregnant need not tell anyone before taking action (abortion pills, travelling to a place where abortion is legal, etc.)

But if it did happen...then what, exactly, would be the due process? 24/7 supervision of the woman? Investigation of all miscarriages?

I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm providing practical concerns.

That is the issue in a nut shell - when (if ever) after conception do the unborn obtain human (personhood?) rights. The constitution cannot be consulted on this matter (other than to admit it is not addressed), thus it was left totally up to the SCOTUS to make that determination based on ???

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not until there is a child. Not during pregnancy.

And he knew the law before he had sex...did he not? Did he not make a decision that he should be held accountable for? He knew the risks. (Yes so did she and birth, abortion, death...all consequences and she has to face at least one of them...she doesnt get out of consequences).

He knew the risks, yet what are his (post conception) options?

 

[Lursa]

That there are any human (personhood?) rights ‘discovered’ after conception but prior to birth when none are ascribed by the constitution makes it only a matter of (arbitrary?) opinion as to when they should be said to begin.

Our rights arent 'discovered,' you just made that up....and that kinda makes it more obvious. The unborn at NO TIME has rights. SCOTUS never said any should "begin." It recognized no rights for the UNBORN. It did give the states the option to restrict (not ban) abortion after viability. Not all states do so...so those 24+ week unborn still have no rights 'discovered' for them. If any babies are born alive at any age...those babies have rights. I've posted the US Code citing the law that Congress must follow regarding that. Have you seen it?

 

[Lursa]

That is the issue in a nut shell - when (if ever) after conception do the unborn obtain human (personhood?) rights. The constitution cannot be consulted on this matter (other than to admit it is not addressed), thus it was left totally up to the SCOTUS to make that determination based on ???

Well the 14th is pretty clear on it:

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Lursa]

He knew the risks, yet what are his (post conception) options?

He knows them...correct? That was the question.

He knows, like any adult male in America, that if there is a pregnancy, she has the final word on the pregnancy. If he wants options besides "post conception' ones, then he needs to decide 'post conception.' So why ask this instead of answering my questions? (And yes, that exact same answer applies to women. If she doesnt decided 'post' sex then she also is 'stuck' with the 'post' conception options.)

Here are my questions again, please:

And he knew the law before he had sex...did he not? Did he not make a decision that he should be held accountable for? He knew the risks. (Yes so did she and birth, abortion, death...all consequences and she has to face at least one of them...she doesnt get out of consequences).​

 

[ttwtt78640]

Our rights arent 'discovered,' you just made that up....and that kinda makes it more obvious. The unborn at NO TIME has rights. SCOTUS never said any should "begin." It recognized no rights for the UNBORN. It did give the states the option to restrict (not ban) abortion after viability. Not all states do so...so those 24+ week unborn still have no rights 'discovered' for them. If any babies are born alive at any age...those babies have rights. I've posted the US Code citing the law that Congress must follow regarding that. Have you seen it?

You are arguing semantics here. I phrased it as the unborn gaining rights (as they develop further), but you seem prefer to see it as the pregnant woman losing rights as the unborn develops further.

Either way you look at it, the Roe SCOTUS decision established that abortion restrictions on the woman (and/or the abortion provider) can increase as the development of the unborn increases.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well the 14th is pretty clear on it:

That does not “clear up” the Roe decision allowing variable abortion rules (restrictions?) based on the stage of fetal development. Whether you view that as gradually lessening the rights of the pregnant woman or gradually adding rights to the unborn does not change the fact that they vary based on fetal development under the Roe ruling. The protection is not equal if it varies based on fetal development.

 

[ttwtt78640]

He knows them...correct? That was the question.

He knows, like any adult male in America, that if there is a pregnancy, she has the final word on the pregnancy. If he wants options besides "post conception' ones, then he needs to decide 'post conception.' So why ask this instead of answering my questions? (And yes, that exact same answer applies to women. If she doesnt decided 'post' sex then she also is 'stuck' with the 'post' conception options.)

Here are my questions again, please:

And he knew the law before he had sex...did he not? Did he not make a decision that he should be held accountable for? He knew the risks. (Yes so did she and birth, abortion, death...all consequences and she has to face at least one of them...she doesnt get out of consequences).​

You are ignoring my point which was that he has no post conception options, yet she does.

 

[Lursa]

You are arguing semantics here. I phrased it as the unborn gaining rights (as they develop further), but you seem prefer to see it as the pregnant woman losing rights as the unborn develops further.

Didnt even imply anything about the woman's rights. I pointed out that, factually, SCOTUS never recognized any stage of the unborn as a person or as having rights.

Either way you look at it, the Roe SCOTUS decision established that abortion restrictions on the woman (and/or the abortion provider) can increase as the development of the unborn increases.

yes, it did. At a very specific point: where the unborn was capable of existing outside the woman...provably equal and capable of exercising rights independently. Before that point, the unborn is provably NOT equal because it cannot exercise a single right independently. Not one.

Even women and blacks, when our/their rights were recognized, were already exercising some of our rights and were immediately capable of exercising all of them when legally recognized as equal.

 

[Lursa]

That does not “clear up” the Roe decision allowing variable abortion rules (restrictions?) based on the stage of fetal development. Whether you view that as gradually lessening the rights of the pregnant woman or gradually adding rights to the unborn does not change the fact that they vary based on fetal development under the Roe ruling. The protection is not equal if it varies based on fetal development.

I agree. IMO it's an emotional and biased issue that even the justices cannot escape. They left it equal for women on a federal level...meaning a woman can have that abortion if she wants, but she may need to pick the right state for it. Weak.

You may have noticed, or not, that I have asked several times lately, including in the US Const. sub-forum, what specifically 'states interests' are. How and where are they defined? I realize they would be different for each issue, but I have been thru the entire RvW decision and nowhere have I seen them defined for that issue. It's a huge gaping hole that they left open because they refused to take the firmest stance. Like recognizing according to the 14th the unborn have no rights (they did recognize this, but as you point out, left a loophole). Like the 9th...where abortion is a right unless otherwise ruled against. Which they didnt. Like the 4th where bodily autonomy is protected. "Security of the person."

 

[Lursa]

You are ignoring my point which was that he has no post conception options, yet she does.

I didnt ignore it. He has no other options. Biology determines her options, that's what makes hers different. Please read thru my post again, I was very specific.

We cant 'invent' options that dont exist. And we cant create (or shouldnt) unconstitutional ones that might include deciding a woman must remain pregnant OR have an abortion.

And men are completely aware of this. So why wont you answer my questions?

And he knew the law before he had sex...did he not? Did he not make a decision that he should be held accountable for? He knew the risks. (Yes so did she and birth, abortion, death...all consequences and she has to face at least one of them...she doesnt get out of consequences).​

 

[soylentgreen]

That is the issue in a nut shell - when (if ever) after conception do the unborn obtain human (personhood?) rights. The constitution cannot be consulted on this matter (other than to admit it is not addressed), thus it was left totally up to the SCOTUS to make that determination based on ???

That is a point directly expressed in the constitution with the words of the the Fourteenth Amendment which guaranteed that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

It is quite clear and you really have no excuse for not knowing this.

That does not “clear up” the Roe decision allowing variable abortion rules (restrictions?) based on the stage of fetal development. Whether you view that as gradually lessening the rights of the pregnant woman or gradually adding rights to the unborn does not change the fact that they vary based on fetal development under the Roe ruling. The protection is not equal if it varies based on fetal development.

And your reply is nothing more than sneaky attempt to demonise women. Pregnancies that last until viability are because the woman wants a child. There are no examples of women getting late term abortions on a whim. It is not a case of women losing or gaining a right. It is in fact a case of a woman choosing to give a child a life even if it is a preemie and may not suvive.

You are ignoring my point which was that he has no post conception options, yet she does.

And again, completely dishonest. Nothing more than another attempt to demand that men should be treated as if they are a pregnant woman. If he wants a post conception choice now that he has disregarded or attempted to deny the choices he already had then let him get pregnant. Then he has a post conception choice of abortion or giving birth.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Didnt even imply anything about the woman's rights. I pointed out that, factually, SCOTUS never recognized any stage of the unborn as a person or as having rights.


yes, it did. At a very specific point: where the unborn was capable of existing outside the woman...provably equal and capable of exercising rights independently. Before that point, the unborn is provably NOT equal because it cannot exercise a single right independently. Not one.

Even women and blacks, when our/their rights were recognized, were already exercising some of our rights and were immediately capable of exercising all of them when legally recognized as equal.

Are you kidding me? That (bolded above) is my point - the unborn attained (some?) rights by the SCOTUS “Roe logic” of simply potentially being differently dependent - not independent.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I agree. IMO it's an emotional and biased issue that even the justices cannot escape. They left it equal for women on a federal level...meaning a woman can have that abortion if she wants, but she may need to pick the right state for it. Weak.

You may have noticed, or not, that I have asked several times lately, including in the US Const. sub-forum, what specifically 'states interests' are. How and where are they defined? I realize they would be different for each issue, but I have been thru the entire RvW decision and nowhere have I seen them defined for that issue. It's a huge gaping hole that they left open because they refused to take the firmest stance. Like recognizing according to the 14th the unborn have no rights (they did recognize this, but as you point out, left a loophole). Like the 9th...where abortion is a right unless otherwise ruled against. Which they didnt. Like the 4th where bodily autonomy is protected. "Security of the person."

Yep, Roe was a lame attempt by the SCOTUS majority alone to assign (some?) rights based on the potential of the unborn to become differently dependent. In other words, if someone (or something mechanical?) could potentially replace the pregnant woman in providing the needs (rights?) of the unborn then (at that point - while still being unborn) their ‘personhood’ status changes.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That is a point directly expressed in the constitution with the words of the the Fourteenth Amendment which guaranteed that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

It is quite clear and you really have no excuse for not knowing this.


And your reply is nothing more than sneaky attempt to demonise women. Pregnancies that last until viability are because the woman wants a child. There are no examples of women getting late term abortions on a whim. It is not a case of women losing or gaining a right. It is in fact a case of a woman choosing to give a child a life even if it is a preemie and may not suvive.


And again, completely dishonest. Nothing more than another attempt to demand that men should be treated as if they are a pregnant woman. If he wants a post conception choice now that he has disregarded or attempted to deny the choices he already had then let him get pregnant. Then he has a post conception choice of abortion or giving birth.

Later term abortions do not involve medical care personnel giving a “preemie“ a chance to survive - they do exactly the opposite.

 

[roguenuke]

You are arguing semantics here. I phrased it as the unborn gaining rights (as they develop further), but you seem prefer to see it as the pregnant woman losing rights as the unborn develops further.

Either way you look at it, the Roe SCOTUS decision established that abortion restrictions on the woman (and/or the abortion provider) can increase as the development of the unborn increases.

Can increase, not do increase. Like Lursa pointed out, there are states where abortion is not restricted at all, allowed til the end of the pregnancy. So what rights does the US government recognize, enforce for the unborn?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Can increase, not do increase. Like Lursa pointed out, there are states where abortion is not restricted at all, allowed til the end of the pregnancy. So what rights does the US government recognize, enforce for the unborn?

Much the same could be said for federal enforcement of immigration or marijuana laws (in “sanctuary” states), but in the case of abortion federal laws are few.

The federal government is unlikely to charge anyone with (any) murder in the several states either (leaving such matters up to the states) - does the lack of federal enforcement (involvement?) indicate that no right to life exists?