A Few Words About Abortion (this is re: personhood legislation)

[BellsMom]

crisismagazine.com/2012/a-few-words-about-abortion

I hope this is the right place to post this. I’ve read many political discussions here regarding what Republicans have or haven’t done to stop abortion in the past when they held the presidency or a majority in congress. It usually comes down to the fact that until there is a majority of pro-life justices on the supreme court there is nothing that can be done.

Then I read this. This is an article from a judge. I’ve found a few blog posts that say the same thing as well but I see they are against the rules to post here.

Is this really true? If it is, how can there be any excuse for any Republican controlled administrations that have not done this? It seems so simple and straight forward to me.

 

[hazmat]

declaring the unborn persons under law, entitled to rights, like citizens, has many implications that go far beyond abortion. that solution for polifers would create problems in other areas having nothing to do with abortion. its not simple.

 

[BellsMom]

I understand exactly what you mean. The implications of a fetus being a person for the law is kind of mind boggling with huge implications.

I guess my point is, if conservative Republicans really are pro-life advocates who deserve the votes of pro-life Catholics (regardless of where they stand on other issues because the right to life is at the core of all others for Catholics), how can there be any excuse for NOT passing this legislation?

Who cares about the repercussions of such legislation if it will stop what pro-life people believe to be the murder of millions of babies? Why fall back on, “Well we need a majority in the supreme court” when that’s not true at all?

 

[hazmat]

oh, i see what youre saying. politicians do love dangling carrots. granted, anything short of an amendment to the us constitution can run into problems down the road, but theres really no telling how far down the road that would even be, if ever. gay marriage bans shouldnt be allowed under federal law, but states have gotten away with that just fine. good point.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

My concern is that these personhood laws would make it illegal for a doctor to perform surgeries to deal with ectopic pregnancies, since those procedures end in the death of the baby, even though the intent is to save the mother’s life. Right now, we don’t have the biotech to allow doctors to implant the baby in the mother’s womb where the baby should have implanted.

It could also be problematic for women who have had miscarriages: some nasty-minded person (ie, a husband or mother or mother in law who’s fixated on her giving them a child, a suspicious co-worker trying to get her out of the way to get her job), could claim that the woman did something to cause the miscarriage, even though it was a simple case of the baby failing to thrive in the womb.

 

[hazmat]

if personhood begins at conception, this could have implications for folks who have unprotected sex too, where conception occurs but the zygote fails to implant. if youre not using a condom with your wife, you could be killing persons regularly.

 

[Ohana]

I think (but am not sure and would welcome a comment from someone who really knows) that in the Jewish faith, abortion is permitted in very narrow circumstances with physician recommendation and also Rabbinical sanction. I would really like to see abortion on demand ended, but some tolerance for some cases. Never and Always are scary words to me. The range of human experience is just not that absolute. The case cited before of ending an ectopic pregnancy is a case in point - it would result in both the death of the mother and child most likely. In our flawed condition, we have to make some judgements and hope they are for the best. This is partly why I get so upset with the all or none position that some take.

 

[The_Rock]

if personhood begins at conception, this could have implications for folks who have unprotected sex too, where conception occurs but the zygote fails to implant. if youre not using a condom with your wife, you could be killing persons regularly.

This argument has no rational basis. Miscarriage is not the intentional killing of the baby, abortion is. By your logic parents could be tried for the murder of their 5 year old child if he died from cancer.

If the past Republican and Democrat majorities erred in failing to declare unborn children persons it does not mean they should err again by failing to do so in the future. We need committed pro-life politicians. We certainly do not need more committed pro-abortion politicians.

The failures of the past politicians does not give us license to vote for pro-abortion politicians.

 

[hazmat]

the rock: just to be clear, im not talking about murder. killing someone isnt necessarily murder. if the law says personhood starts at conception, those are the implications; regardless of your intentions. if a child dies from cancer that was treatable but not treated (e.g., for religious reasons), the parents actually could be charged with a crime. thats already a reality.

 

[The_Rock]

crisismagazine.com/2012/a-few-words-about-abortion

I hope this is the right place to post this. I’ve read many political discussions here regarding what Republicans have or haven’t done to stop abortion in the past when they held the presidency or a majority in congress. It usually comes down to the fact that until there is a majority of pro-life justices on the supreme court there is nothing that can be done.

Then I read this. This is an article from a judge. I’ve found a few blog posts that say the same thing as well but I see they are against the rules to post here.

Is this really true? If it is, how can there be any excuse for any Republican controlled administrations that have not done this? It seems so simple and straight forward to me.

The answer to your question is in the article that you posted:

Roe vs. Wade itself does not define the right to an abortion, but it does unambiguously declare that the baby in the womb is not a person, and that the right to privacy protects the mother’s decision to kill the baby.

Bringing legislation to a pro-abortion Supreme Court that says that the baby **is a person **would have been struck down by the court, further cementing the flawed ruling in Roe v Wade. Until personhood legislation can be upheld by a pro-life court, such laws would only entrench the so called “right” to abortion.

 

[The_Rock]

the rock: just to be clear, im not talking about murder. killing someone isnt necessarily murder. if the law says personhood starts at conception, those are the implications; regardless of your intentions. if a child dies from cancer that was treatable but not treated (e.g., for religious reasons), the parents actually could be charged with a crime. thats already a reality.

So what possible crime would the parents of a baby who failed to implant be charged with in your scenario? They did nothing to cause the death, nor did they fail to do anything reasonable to avoid the death. Everyone dies eventually. By your logic my parents could be charged with a crime simply for conceiving me.

 

[BellsMom]

Yet the judge also says this…

“In the years in which the pro-life Ronald Reagan and both Presidents Bush were in the White House, from time to time, both chambers of Congress had pro-life majorities. Did you see any legislation passed that declared a baby in the womb to be a person? No. This could have been done by a simple majority vote and presidential signature, and Roe vs. Wade, and all the killing it spawned, would have ended.”

That to me says that it really is this simple to get Roe V Wade overturned.

I admit I don’t know a lot about the law but would legislation regarding personhood even be appeal-able to the supreme court? Wouldn’t it come down to the court having to say “It’s not constitutional for you to define personhood.”?

How is it unconstitutional for the government to use legislation to define such an important word, especially given that the legal definition of that word has such far reaching effects on the rights and privileges of it’s citizens?

 

[hazmat]

the rock: for example, if its determined that a woman engages in behavior that negatively impacts implantation, or even causes miscarriage after implantation, then this would be tied to the killing of a person–assuming personhood starts at conception.

 

[The_Rock]

the rock: for example, if its determined that a woman engages in behavior that negatively impacts implantation, or even causes miscarriage after implantation, then this would be tied to the killing of a person–assuming personhood starts at conception.

Sure, like taking the morning after abortion pill. But your original contention was:

if personhood begins at conception, this could have implications for folks who have unprotected sex too, where conception occurs but the zygote fails to implant. if youre not using a condom with your wife, you could be killing persons regularly.

So your original contention, that by not using a condom you could be killing persons regularly is a spurious argument. Simply becoming pregnant can not be construed to be “killing” persons. A subsequent action such as taking a pill that aborts the living human being could be considered killing the child however

 

[kama3]

It could also be problematic for women who have had miscarriages: some nasty-minded person (ie, a husband or mother or mother in law who’s fixated on her giving them a child, a suspicious co-worker trying to get her out of the way to get her job), could claim that the woman did something to cause the miscarriage, even though it was a simple case of the baby failing to thrive in the womb.

No, it’s much worse. Under such legislation, if a woman miscarries, the state treats it the same way as if someone found a dead body. Criminal proceedings are automatically started with her as the suspect. There are some Latin American countries that use this approach – you wouldn’t want to have a miscarriage there: womensrevolution.com/2011/05/women-in-latin-america-protest.html

Also, another implication is that if fetus is a person, then it has equal rights to those of a woman. The way the legal system works is that you cannot infringe on the rights of person A, to help person B. The implication is that if a pregnant woman requires treatment which could harm the fetus, she will be denied that treatment, regardless of consequences.

 

[St_Francis]

I think that it would take an amendment to the Constitution or a reversal by the Supreme Court itself to overturn the findings in Roe v Wade–that is why for the past almost-40 years the pro-life movement has worked in that direction.