Anti-Abortion Hypothetical Question

[Koga No Goshi]

This is a hypothetical question for anti-abortion people.

Let's assume that we pass a law which recognizes the full rights of fetuses as human beings from the moment of conception. At that moment any form of abortion or abortive procedures or attempts is considered illegal, or a form of murder.

Does that mean that if a foreign national, visiting the United States, becomes pregnant and can verify that conception occurred during the time she was in the U.S., that her child, having full human rights under U.S. law, is entitled to citizenship?

Have at it..

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't see why. All people in the US should have rights, but that doesn't mean they automatically get citizenship.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

I don't see why. All people in the US should have rights, but that doesn't mean they automatically get citizenship.

CR

One of those rights is that if you are born here you are a citizen.

[Lemur]

You would need to differentiate between when a multi-cellular structure becomes human (answer: at conception) and when it is born. Since the actual date of conception would be hard to prove, I would imagine that most legal consequences would derive from the date of birth, not from the necessarily fuzzier date of conception.

[Koga No Goshi]

You would need to differentiate between when a multi-cellular structure becomes human (answer: at conception) and when it is born. Since the actual date of conception would be hard to prove, I would imagine that most legal consequences would derive from the date of birth, not from the necessarily fuzzier date of conception.

We're not assuming that we're 50 years down the road and there are already established laws about it. We're assuming everything else remains the same except a law is passed recognizing FULL HUMAN RIGHTS at the moment of conception as a means of criminalizing and banning abortion in the U.S.

So, imagine whatever context works... a challenge at the Supreme Court by a woman who was here for three months and her conception was DEFINITELY while she was in the U.S., or whatever.

Sorry if I seem to be changing the rules. I am asking for a logical reasoning as to why it should, or should not, confer benefits of citizenship if it confers recognition of complete human rights at the moment of conception. Rather than "well what I think they would do is.."

[LittleGrizzly]

Since the actual date of conception would be hard to prove, I would imagine that most legal consequences would derive from the date of birth, not from the necessarily fuzzier date of conception.

I think whatshe's getting at with the hypothetical is that if they are humans from birth then they have certain rights.... like citizenship, also another hypothetical would an american woman be banned from going abroad for an abortion (because she's going away to kill a human) and would a tourist be banned from going home if she was going to abort her baby ?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

One of those rights is that if you are born here you are a citizen.

If you are born there, not if you are conceived there. Even if the unborn child has equal rights, existing law does not entitle it to citizenship.

[Koga No Goshi]

Since the actual date of conception would be hard to prove, I would imagine that most legal consequences would derive from the date of birth, not from the necessarily fuzzier date of conception.

I think whatshe's getting at with the hypothetical is that if they are humans from birth then they have certain rights.... like citizenship, also another hypothetical would an american woman be banned from going abroad for an abortion (because she's going away to kill a human) and would a tourist be banned from going home if she was going to abort her baby ?

This is a good one too, would a woman coming back to the U.S. after an abortion be chargeable with murder? But it perhaps is another topic. :)

[Koga No Goshi]

If you are born there, not if you are conceived there. Even if the unborn child has equal rights, existing law does not entitle it to citizenship.

Existing law does not recognize a fetus as a human with full human rights, either. So if we CHANGE that from BIRTH to CONCEPTION, does it or does it not pose a logical inconsistency for some rights to be gained at birth and others at conception under U.S. law? Or, should ALL present law that confers rights at BIRTH (such as full human rights and citizenship) be moved to the moment of conception?

And in both cases we are talking about rights that qualify your existence in the eyes of the United States, so I do consider them related. The law recognizing you as a full citizen simply because you popped out at a U.S. hospital, vs. the law recognizing your full human rights when sperm fertilizes an egg. Contradiction? Not a contradiction?

[Lemur]

Well, yeah, changing the definition of "full human rights" status in such a major way would create a huge thicket of legal issues. That's why we have lawyers and judges and cases to sort these things out. The law does not exist in some philosophical vacuum, it has to function in the real world. Going back to the opening post: the obvious answer would be to base citizenship on birth, not conception. The moment when ovum meets sperm is just too damn hard to prove.

Just because a blastocyst has the protections of a full human being does not mean that every other right and responsibility must be conferred at the same moment. Children are protected by many laws, but we don't let them vote. Does this make sense to you?

[Crazed Rabbit]

One of those rights is that if you are born here you are a citizen.

And I don't agree with that. And being born is different from being conceived. It doesn't pose any logical inconsistency; it just seems you're trying some odd new pro-abortion argument.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Existing law does not recognize a fetus as a human with full human rights, either. So if we CHANGE that from BIRTH to CONCEPTION, does it or does it not pose a logical inconsistency for some rights to be gained at birth and others at conception under U.S. law? Or, should ALL present law that confers rights at BIRTH (such as full human rights and citizenship) be moved to the moment of conception?

The right to live from conception - more rights at birth, and all rights at the age of adulthood. The youth don't have the right to vote, so according to your logic, we already have a logical inconsistency - unless, of course, you want infant suffrage.


And in both cases we are talking about rights that qualify your existence in the eyes of the United States, so I do consider them related. The law recognizing you as a full citizen simply because you popped out at a U.S. hospital, vs. the law recognizing your full human rights when sperm fertilizes an egg. Contradiction? Not a contradiction?

You cannot always tell where you were when conception occured, but I think it's fairly obvious where the birth happened. No, the fetus has the right to life. It does not yet have the right to citizenship.

EDIT: Plus what CR said.

[Koga No Goshi]

Well, yeah, changing the definition of "full human rights" status in such a major way would create a huge thicket of legal issues. That's why we have lawyers and judges and cases to sort these things out. The law does not exist in some philosophical vacuum, it has to function in the real world. Going back to the opening post: the obvious answer would be to base citizenship on birth, not conception. The moment when ovum meets sperm is just too damn hard to prove.

Just because a blastocyst has the protections of a full human being does not mean that every other right and responsibility must be conferred at the same moment. Children are protected by many laws, but we don't let them vote. Does this make sense to you?

Yes it makes sense, I'm not seeking a "right answer", just trying to nudge legally and logically consistent answers out of people on the topic. :)

[Samurai Waki]

Or as Mr. Spock would say: "This query implies an illogical solution" :vulcan:

[Koga No Goshi]

And I don't agree with that. And being born is different from being conceived. It doesn't pose any logical inconsistency; it just seems you're trying some odd new pro-abortion argument.

CR

Let's not start calling out the motivations in each other's closets when we don't know each other, shall we? This is an intellectual exercise, nothing more. Abortion is legal and I do not consider that likely to change; the anti-abortion movement has had 8 years of almost complete control of the branches of government and from a political viewpoint it's fairly obvious that the GOP chooses to use that as a wedge issue and to energize its base, and will probably never actually go through with it. BUt this is neither here nor there. I feel no compelling desire to "dredge up an old pro abortion argument"; I'm pro choice but so is the majority of this country and so are our laws. So let's just keep it civil and in the realm of theoretical yes?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Let's not start calling out the motivations in each other's closets when we don't know each other, shall we? ..... etc.

As Lemur put it, you can have human rights without such rights as the right to vote. Society has long held that many rights come upon reaching the age of majority.

And I oppose anchor-babies as well, so perhaps you could point out any "logical inconsistencies".

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

As Lemur put it, you can have human rights without such rights as the right to vote. Society has long held that many rights come upon reaching the age of majority.

And I oppose anchor-babies as well, so perhaps you could point out any "logical inconsistencies".

CR

Gotcha. That's all I was looking for, a simple answer explaining how you would rationalize human rights at conception but citizenship at birth.

The logical inconsistency is still there; even if you oppose anchor babies, that is the basis upon which someone is a U.S. citizen in law, and human rights being granted at conception would not overturn citizenship granted at birth in courts. I'm not doing an ideological battle with you. We're talking about courts and laws and rule of law and a legal system that makes sense rather than picks and chooses based on expediency. So I'm just looking for a consistent answer.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Gotcha. That's all I was looking for, a simple answer explaining how you would rationalize human rights at conception but citizenship at birth.

I don't think having sex in the USA means the child is a USA citizen.


The logical inconsistency is still there; even if you oppose anchor babies, that is the basis upon which someone is a U.S. citizen in law, and human rights being granted at conception would not overturn citizenship granted at birth in courts.

You can't take part of my answer and ignore the other half (that I oppose anchor babies) and insert the current laws and then say my position is inconsistent.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

I don't think having sex in the USA means the child is a USA citizen.


You can't take part of my answer and ignore the other half (that I oppose anchor babies) and insert the current laws and then say my position is inconsistent.

CR

Yes I can, because the question was in the context if all laws stayed the same besides recognizing that a human with full human rights has been created at the moment of conception. Your personal disagreement with the 'anchor baby' idea doesn't magically overturn the law that if you are born here, you are a U.S. citizen. So from a legal perspective, the inconsistency (or arguable inconsistency I should say) of yes, we recognize that you have been created and you are now a full human person, but no, until you pop out of the womb you don't have a citizenship is what I am referring to.

The law isn't "well I disagree with this law so I disregard it." I'm looking for legally consistent answers if that makes sense to you. See Lemur's logic for an example.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Legally consistent? You were just talking about logically consistent.

And unless you could change the whole tens of thousands of laws we have in a single stroke, you could never have complete legal consistency.

And I don't agree with that argument anyway. My opinions are legally consistent. Mixing my opinions and current law does not show a legal or logical inconsistency on my part.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

Legally consistent? You were just talking about logically consistent.

And unless you could change the whole tens of thousands of laws we have in a single stroke, you could never have complete legal consistency.

And I don't agree with that argument anyway. My opinions are legally consistent. Mixing my opinions and current law does not show a legal or logical inconsistency on my part.

CR

Ugh.... look, if you can't follow the discussion, and are just here to spew, there are other threads for that. I was talking about LAWS from the beginning of the discussion, and then clarified and said imagine the case in front of the Supreme Court. No, not the entire legal system is completely consistent, but that is exactly when a case tends to wind up in front of the Supreme Court, when for instance a local law intersects with a Federal law, or a Federal law intersects with a human rights issue, or when two inconsistent laws get inconsistently applied. The Supreme Court heard all kinds of cases defining race and who fit what race back when rights were conferred based on race; for instance when full rights were accorded only to white people, a pale-skinned Japanese man went before the Supreme Court and petitioned for status as a white person, and the Supreme Court ruled against it because it said that due to the Bering Strait theory he was actually the same race as Native Americans, who had an established legal place in America at that time which was not equal to white. And then a man from India came forth putting the argument that because, anthropologically, it was believed that Indian people from India were caucasian and descended from the same group as Europeans, he should be recognized as a white person. And the Supreme Court ruled that even though anthropologically he could be considered part of the European race, he did not fit the "common perception of the definition of white person" and thus did not qualify. Of course these laws and others like them were all later overturned or done away with because of the inconsistencies involved in trying to define the white race and assign rights based on who was white.

Similarly, issuing full human rights at the time of conception, but saying that you don't have the right to citizenship even though we recognize that a full human being with all full human rights has been created, is a legal problem. What if a baby conceived in the U.S. is then born in the middle of a transoceanic cruise or flight? They have no country? The U.S. recognizes their human rights and protects them from abortion, but disowns them as a citizen? This is the sort of thing that would come in front of the courts and would need resolving.

So please, stop the drama like I am trying to oppress your opinion or single you out. I am asking people to grasp the greater context of the implications of changing the definitions of when someone is a full human being with full human rights and give me their arguments as to how that would change existing laws. If you are incapable of seeing that there is a bigger picture, then thank you for your input.

[ICantSpellDawg]

He's following the discussion just fine.

[PanzerJaeger]

I haven't read the (I'm sure highly predictable) discussion at all, but isn't this rather obvious?

You still have to be born in the US to get citizenship. If a Mexican visits the US to do some light painting and yard work and gets knocked up, the baby still has to be born here to get citizenship. This in no way invalidates the baby's right to life.

[Koga No Goshi]

I haven't read the (I'm sure highly predictable) discussion at all, but isn't this rather obvious?

You still have to be born in the US to get citizenship. If a Mexican visits the US to do some light painting and yard work and gets knocked up, the baby still has to be born here to get citizenship. This in no way invalidates the baby's right to life.

You have to be careful with your terms. It's not a baby in the womb when sperm meets egg. It's an embryo, and then a fetus. You are putting the cart before the horse saying it's a baby. Legally, that is not presently the case. However, if the law is changed so that at the moment of conception, it is a baby with full human rights, the case can also be made that it is therefore a baby created on American soil yes?

Not asking you to agree with that point, just saying that it is NOT an open and shut easy answer.

[PanzerJaeger]

You have to be careful with your terms. It's not a baby in the womb when sperm meets egg. It's an embryo, and then a fetus. You are putting the cart before the horse saying it's a baby. Legally, that is not presently the case. However, if the law is changed so that at the moment of conception, it is a baby with full human rights, the case can also be made that it is therefore a baby created on American soil yes?

Not asking you to agree with that point, just saying that it is NOT an open and shut easy answer.

I see where you're coming from, I just don't think that, with the passage of such a theoretical law, the case would necessarily have to be made.

Being born could still be a recognized "right of passage", like turning 18 and 21. Requiring a baby to actually be born in the United States to receive citizenship would not invalidate that theoretical law.

[Koga No Goshi]

I see where you're coming from, I just don't think that, with the passage of such a theoretical law, the case would necessarily have to be made.

Being born could still be a recognized "right of passage", like turning 18 and 21. Requiring a baby to actually be born in the United States to receive citizenship would not invalidate that theoretical law.

I agree. That's the most plausible argument I've seen so far, I think Lemur made it first and it is the strongest argument relying on already present legal precedent to back up maintaining the distinction. I don't think it's a matter of the case "needing to be made', I think it WOULD be made. I think there would be legal challenges in the courts because a distinction between "human at conception under U.S. law" but then "not an American human until it comes out of the womb" is trigger-thin.

[Kadagar_AV]

This is a good one too, would a woman coming back to the U.S. after an abortion be chargeable with murder? But it perhaps is another topic. :)

Just a quick answer, nope.

Only is she had the abortion in the US. You are only required to follow the law in the country you are in when the thing occurs.

Meaning, even if abortion was illegal in the states, US citizens woudl still have the right to make an abortion in another country and then come back, without them being prosecuted.

This is the way national and international laws work.

As an example, as a swede I can have sex with 15 year old girls... Legal age in Sweden is 15. So, if I went to the US, They wouldnt be able to put me in jail for it. Americans who come to sweden can also ahve sex with 15 yo girls (or boys).

Also, US citizsens are free to go to Amsterdam and smoke weed, as much as they want to, as they follow netherlands laws...

Just a sidenote:)

[Louis VI the Fat]

This is a hypothetical question for anti-abortion people.

Let's assume that we pass a law which recognizes the full rights of fetuses as human beings from the moment of conception. At that moment any form of abortion or abortive procedures or attempts is considered illegal, or a form of murder.

Does that mean that if a foreign national, visiting the United States, becomes pregnant and can verify that conception occurred during the time she was in the U.S., that her child, having full human rights under U.S. law, is entitled to citizenship?Why, of course it is entitled to citizenship. To be precise: the fetus is entitled to the exact same rights to citizenship as newborns. The answer to the hypothetical question in paragraph three has been given in paragraph two.
If a hypothetical law is passed that recognizes the full rights of fetuses as human beings from the moment of conception, then that's that really. Nothing to it. This poses no dilemmas, paradoxes, or possible inconsistensies to anti-abortionists. On the contrary, they have just been pre-emptively solved.


The difficult question to ask anti-abortion people is: if the moment of conception marks the birth of a human being, then shouldn't an embryo be granted full rights as human beings? This then, will have some serious consequences, and even dilemmas and inconsistensies. (And it is about these that CR shared some of his thoughts). Like, for example, that of anchor conception.

The same concept poses a mirrored and reversed dilemma for pro-choicers. For example, in inheritance law (depending on jurisdiction, of course) inheritances can be transferred to the unborn. That is, they enjoy rights as if they were living. The same dilemma applies, and the question to pro-choicers is: if the moment of birth marks the beginning of a human being, then shouldn't an embryo be excluded from rights? If you grant embryos the right to property, then why not the more important right to life?

[HoreTore]

I'd say a more important question is; will we charge women with a miscarriage for murder?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'd say a more important question is; will we charge women with a miscarriage for murder?Well, possibly, if she's been riding on galloping horses for days on end.
Maybe we should lock pregnant women up preventively!

Speaking of which, what of imprisonment? Surely, an unborn child should not spend months in prison simply because its mother broke the law?


Likewise, for the baby murdering pro-choicers: what if an eight-month pregnant women is stabbed in the stomach and loses her baby? Is it just a lump of cells that's lost? Or can the stabber be charged with homicide?

[Don Corleone]

If I understand it correctly, Koga-san has posed a question in the broader sense of theory of law, not particular application. The question as I understand it is... if we are to confer human rights upon an embryo at the moment of conception, must we then instill all human rights we confer upon humans beyond just the right to life.

Well, first of all, "human rights" is a very nebulous discussion in the context of American theory of law. For one thing, many people 'think' there are certain human rights, I'll give you a hint, they're referred to as 'inalienable', that in fact do not carry the full moral force of a human right, under American theory of law.

Example? The right to the PURSUIT of happiness. The Declaration of Independence (which, by the way, has no legal weight under our legal system whatsoever), declares this to be an inalienable right. The U.S. Constitution, which is the bedrock of all American legal theory never mentions this difficult to define term. (Note to all: it is the PURSUIT that is called for in the DOI, not a guarantee of Happiness itself).

Back to original particular question... would an embryo conceived within the borders of the United States therefore be entitled to citizenship, in light of the fact that we have no shifted the definition of a person from birth to conception.

I believe the argument could be made, forecfully, either way. Citizenship granted upon those born by happy circumstance within the borders of the United States is legally considered a privelege, not a right. It is something the U.S. Government chooses to do, yet is not obligated to do. Yes, I'm tapdancing on the head of a pin, but it's a valid point... we could change the law on this matter at any time we so choose, and I think that's what Rabbit was trying to get at... that it's not a legal requirement by the constructs of our legal system, it's a boon that he doesn't support, so he doesn't feel obligated to support it as it is transferred to an earlier state in the physical development process.

All of that being said, I personally always attempt to err on the side of consistency in the writing/interpretation of laws. Too much arbitrariness is bad, as it becomes impossible to fathom the logic of the legal system and you wind up with the modern equivalent of the Code of Hammurabi, "It is thus because I/we say it is thus". Not a good thing for Democracies (pure or represenative) that are comprised of people of varying familiarity with the particulars of the law.

So, while I would not argue for the abolition of selective abortion in the first trimester, were such a legal movement to gain ground, I would argue that in fact yes, the individual in question would be entitled to any/all of the rights hitherto granted upon those lucky enough to vacate the womb intact. In short, the embryo, and it's host, would be entitled to the rights of citizenship, should they so desire them, as well as the responsibilities conferred simultaneously.

One issue I have with the concept of 'anchor babies', as CR put it, is the rights of citizenship are conferred, but not the responsibilities. In my own personal philosophy of life, divorcing authority and responsiblity, or vice versa, almost always lead to untenable situations.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If I understand it correctly, Koga-san has posed a question in the broader sense of theory of law, not particular application. The question as I understand it is... if we are to confer human rights upon an embryo at the moment of conception, must we then instill all human rights we confer upon humans beyond just the right to life.

Well, first of all, "human rights" is a very nebulous discussion in the context of American theory of law. For one thing, many people 'think' there are certain human rights, I'll give you a hint, they're referred to as 'inalienable', that in fact do not carry the full moral force of a human right, under American theory of law.

Example? The right to the PURSUIT of happiness. The Declaration of Independence (which, by the way, has no legal weight under our legal system whatsoever), declares this to be an inalienable right. The U.S. Constitution, which is the bedrock of all American legal theory never mentions this difficult to define term. (Note to all: it is the PURSUIT that is called for in the DOI, not a guarantee of Happiness itself).

Back to original particular question... would an embryo conceived within the borders of the United States therefore be entitled to citizenship, in light of the fact that we have no shifted the definition of a person from birth to conception.

I believe the argument could be made, forecfully, either way. Citizenship granted upon those born by happy circumstance within the borders of the United States is legally considered a privelege, not a right. It is something the U.S. Government chooses to do, yet is not obligated to do. Yes, I'm tapdancing on the head of a pin, but it's a valid point... we could change the law on this matter at any time we so choose, and I think that's what Rabbit was trying to get at... that it's not a legal requirement by the constructs of our legal system, it's a boon that he doesn't support, so he doesn't feel obligated to support it as it is transferred to an earlier state in the physical development process.

All of that being said, I personally always attempt to err on the side of consistency in the writing/interpretation of laws. Too much arbitrariness is bad, as it becomes impossible to fathom the logic of the legal system and you wind up with the modern equivalent of the Code of Hammurabi, "It is thus because I/we say it is thus". Not a good thing for Democracies (pure or represenative) that are comprised of people of varying familiarity with the particulars of the law.

So, while I would not argue for the abolition of selective abortion in the first trimester, were such a legal movement to gain ground, I would argue that in fact yes, the individual in question would be entitled to any/all of the rights hitherto granted upon those lucky enough to vacate the womb intact. In short, the embryo, and it's host, would be entitled to the rights of citizenship, should they so desire them, as well as the responsibilities conferred simultaneously.

One issue I have with the concept of 'anchor babies', as CR put it, is the rights of citizenship are conferred, but not the responsibilities. In my own personal philosophy of life, divorcing authority and responsiblity, or vice versa, almost always lead to untenable situations.

Well written post.

[drone]

The unborn are not citizens. Why, you may ask? If you can't claim them as dependents on your tax form, they don't exist as far as the government is concerned. :yes:

[Koga No Goshi]

If I understand it correctly, Koga-san has posed a question in the broader sense of theory of law, not particular application. The question as I understand it is... if we are to confer human rights upon an embryo at the moment of conception, must we then instill all human rights we confer upon humans beyond just the right to life.

Well, first of all, "human rights" is a very nebulous discussion in the context of American theory of law. For one thing, many people 'think' there are certain human rights, I'll give you a hint, they're referred to as 'inalienable', that in fact do not carry the full moral force of a human right, under American theory of law.

Example? The right to the PURSUIT of happiness. The Declaration of Independence (which, by the way, has no legal weight under our legal system whatsoever), declares this to be an inalienable right. The U.S. Constitution, which is the bedrock of all American legal theory never mentions this difficult to define term. (Note to all: it is the PURSUIT that is called for in the DOI, not a guarantee of Happiness itself).

Back to original particular question... would an embryo conceived within the borders of the United States therefore be entitled to citizenship, in light of the fact that we have no shifted the definition of a person from birth to conception.

I believe the argument could be made, forecfully, either way. Citizenship granted upon those born by happy circumstance within the borders of the United States is legally considered a privelege, not a right. It is something the U.S. Government chooses to do, yet is not obligated to do. Yes, I'm tapdancing on the head of a pin, but it's a valid point... we could change the law on this matter at any time we so choose, and I think that's what Rabbit was trying to get at... that it's not a legal requirement by the constructs of our legal system, it's a boon that he doesn't support, so he doesn't feel obligated to support it as it is transferred to an earlier state in the physical development process.

All of that being said, I personally always attempt to err on the side of consistency in the writing/interpretation of laws. Too much arbitrariness is bad, as it becomes impossible to fathom the logic of the legal system and you wind up with the modern equivalent of the Code of Hammurabi, "It is thus because I/we say it is thus". Not a good thing for Democracies (pure or represenative) that are comprised of people of varying familiarity with the particulars of the law.

So, while I would not argue for the abolition of selective abortion in the first trimester, were such a legal movement to gain ground, I would argue that in fact yes, the individual in question would be entitled to any/all of the rights hitherto granted upon those lucky enough to vacate the womb intact. In short, the embryo, and it's host, would be entitled to the rights of citizenship, should they so desire them, as well as the responsibilities conferred simultaneously.

One issue I have with the concept of 'anchor babies', as CR put it, is the rights of citizenship are conferred, but not the responsibilities. In my own personal philosophy of life, divorcing authority and responsiblity, or vice versa, almost always lead to untenable situations.

Thank you for clarifying it so eloquently.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'd say a more important question is; will we charge women with a miscarriage for murder?

For taking the morning after pill? I'd say no, though there are sure to be those who disagree with me. For forcibly trying to induce a miscarriage during the pregnancy after the time to take the morning after pill has passed? Perhaps. They could either be charged under the laws preventing abortion (since inducing miscarriage is basically an abortion) or under the murder laws, whichever is appropriate.

[HoreTore]

For taking the morning after pill? I'd say no, though there are sure to be those who disagree with me. For forcibly trying to induce a miscarriage during the pregnancy after the time to take the morning after pill has passed? Perhaps. They could either be charged under the laws preventing abortion (since inducing miscarriage is basically an abortion) or under the murder laws, whichever is appropriate.

No, I'm not talking about a morning after pill, I'm talking about a standard miscarriage. For example something like these examples:

- Mother smokes during pregnancy. Smoking increases the chance of miscarriage(I think by a lot, but I'm not sure on that). She has a miscarriage. Murder?
- Mother has unprotected sex, and gets chlamydia. Chlamydia causes miscarriage. Murder?
- Mother is a cocaine addict. Cocaine greatly increases the chance of a miscarriage. Murder?

Logically, all of these should AT LEAST be manslaughter if you decide that human life begins legally at conception. Is that really what we want?

Also, consider how you would go about investigating these things. If there is any point at all in such a law, you would have to count about every miscarriage as a possible murder. Sounds jolly.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

- Mother smokes during pregnancy. Smoking increases the chance of miscarriage(I think by a lot, but I'm not sure on that). She has a miscarriage. Murder?

Yes. No mother should smoke during pregnancy. Are there no laws against that?


- Mother has unprotected sex, and gets chlamydia. Chlamydia causes miscarriage. Murder?

No. Nobody intentionally contracts chlamydia. Unprotected sex was necessary to produce the child.


- Mother is a cocaine addict. Cocaine greatly increases the chance of a miscarriage. Murder?

Yes. Nobody should be doing drugs, smoking, or drinking during pregnancy. It is remarkably irresponsible and careless.

[Hooahguy]

im pro-life, except when it coems to rape and when the mothers life will be in danger.
to me, people are only really humans when they begin to look like one..... usually a few months after pregnancy.
i have no problem with any morning-after pills.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yes. Nobody should be doing drugs, smoking, or drinking during pregnancy. It is remarkably irresponsible and careless.

In the sort of society that the pro-life movement would like to create, many women would be unwillingly carrying pregnancies to term against their will, to follow the law. So I think it's a perfectly valid legal query as to whether or not the mother not particularly CARING about being "remarkably irresponsible and careless" would fall into the domain of murder or manslaughter.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In the sort of society that the pro-life movement would like to create, many women would be unwillingly carrying pregnancies to term against their will, to follow the law. So I think it's a perfectly valid legal query as to whether or not the mother not particularly CARING about being "remarkably irresponsible and careless" would fall into the domain of murder or manslaughter.

It is murder through neglect.

[KrooK]

Why not ? :) Children would be US citizen.
US citizenship is nothing so great:) And if you want avoid this problem you can simply....
chose another way of becoming citizen - US citizen is person born from US citizen or citizens.

[HoreTore]

It is murder through neglect.

I'm very grateful that those ideas aren't running my country. That's actually the kind of society you want? Seriously? I have to admit, I was just trolling... Seriously? This is what you want?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm very grateful that those ideas aren't running my country. That's actually the kind of society you want? Seriously? I have to admit, I was just trolling... Seriously? This is what you want?

Think of it this way. You have an elderly invalid that you take care of, and you know he can't eat meat. You feed him cheeseburgers, three meals a day, every single day. It's the same with a baby. Are there no laws against smoking, drinking, and doing drugs during pregnancy? Whether abortion is legal or not, there should be laws against that. It's shockingly irresponsible.

[HoreTore]

GAH!!!

[PanzerJaeger]

\US citizenship is nothing so great :)

Your "America sucks" smilies always appear green to me...

[KrooK]

Sorry Jaeger but for member of EU its really nothing great.
Maybe for someone from really poor countries but not for EU, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland.

[Koga No Goshi]

It is true that America's standing in the eyes of the world is no longer so unquestionably high as it used to be. Whereas 30 years ago immigrants badly wanted to come to the U.S. and raise their kids here, it's really only true in certain cases now like China, Latin America, etc. When you talk to Canadians, Europeans or Australians or Japanese, a lot of them don't want to raise kids in the U.S. anymore. From a quality of life and opportunity perspective we have fallen behind and there is no longer any marked advantage to doing so here as opposed to other places. (Safety is also a concern for many people I've spoken to who say they'd rather move back to Sweden/insert home country when they have kids.)

[KukriKhan]

The difficult question to ask anti-abortion people is: if the moment of conception marks the birth of a human being, then shouldn't an embryo be granted full rights as human beings? This then, will have some serious consequences, and even dilemmas and inconsistensies.

Various laws in various North American Jurisdictions have been passed that confer, if not full citizenship or human rights, at least the "protection of the law", on the unborn. A quick Google reveals:

Canada (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08010312.html)

Pennsylvania (http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/18.Cp.26.html)

Missouri (http://bransonmissouri.missourinetizen.com/2008/02/murder-of-unborn-child-may-lead-to.html)

Arkansas (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=202)

So, although it may not yet be the Federal law of the land, various jurisdictions with the right to rule what constitutes murder, have therefore also implicitly ruled when in life the protection of government is mandatory.

I agree that the issue will appear on the SCOTUS schedule someday - probably within 10 years. Some guy on death row for killing an unborn child, but not the mother, will appeal.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Various laws in various North American Jurisdictions have been passed that confer, if not full citizenship or human rights, at least the "protection of the law", on the unborn.

In countries such as Germany, even birth in the country does not necessarily constitute citizenship (if neither parent is German). The exception is if at least one parent has lived in Germany for at least eight years, and had a permanent residence certificate for at least the last three, and the child was born on or after January 1st, 2000.

[Strike For The South]

It is true that America's standing in the eyes of the world is no longer so unquestionably high as it used to be. Whereas 30 years ago immigrants badly wanted to come to the U.S. and raise their kids here, it's really only true in certain cases now like China, Latin America, etc. When you talk to Canadians, Europeans or Australians or Japanese, a lot of them don't want to raise kids in the U.S. anymore. From a quality of life and opportunity perspective we have fallen behind and there is no longer any marked advantage to doing so here as opposed to other places. (Safety is also a concern for many people I've spoken to who say they'd rather move back to Sweden/insert home country when they have kids.)

This is why we have more foreign born people than anyone else in the world right? because Americas so bad! Are there countries comparable to the US in allot of things? yes. Do some countries do things better? hell yes. But what America stands for and what America means to the mexican or to the African or the Chinese man when he steps of the boat is the same thing it meant for the Italian, Czech and jewish immigrant 100 years ago and the German Irish and English immigrant 200 years ago. Very few countries are so intertwined with an idea. America is a symbol of hope and that if work hard enough there is no limit to what you can do. Americas greatest strength is the fact that people from all over the wrold came here to better themselves. They believed in what this country stood for. That is what makes America unique the fact that diversity does not weaken us but makes us stronger.

[Big_John]

just fyi, you can't "murder" through "neglect", at least not in the US (and anywhere with a descendant of english common law, i imagine). murder requires some form of specific intent and usually some form of premeditation. homicide via neglect is manslaughter.

if you want to reword the behavior as "reckless" instead of neglectful, then you could try to make a case for constructive intent.

[Koga No Goshi]

This is why we have more foreign born people than anyone else in the world right? because Americas so bad!

No, we have more foreign born people because of a huge exodus of mostly female Chinese immigrants to the United States (one of the biggest migrations in history) as well as what something like 7% of our population being completely undocumented immigrants who snuck in. (Maybe more, I guess they don't really know the true number, just going with the estimates.) And I already specifically made exception for those two major immigrant groups. But let's just take Japanese, as one example. Japanese used to be in the top 3 of Asian minority populations in the United States. It has dropped down to being only the 7th or 8th biggest, in part because there is virtually zero net movement from Japan to the U.S.

Why is that, exactly?

You can't get into these topics with a really simplistic black and white view. Yes, we have a large foreign born population. But qualify where those are coming from. The U.S. is not an unquestionably "better" place to a lot of first world residents anymore. Saying "well we get a ton from China and Mexico" =/= "every country wishes they could live here instead." In fact that's setting the bar pretty low in terms of judging where's the best country to move and raise kids.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

just fyi, you can't "murder" through "neglect", at least not in the US (and anywhere with a descendant of english common law, i imagine). murder requires some form of specific intent and usually some form of premeditation. homicide via neglect is manslaughter.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11092139/page/3/

[Strike For The South]

No, we have more foreign born people because of a huge exodus of mostly female Chinese immigrants to the United States (one of the biggest migrations in history) as well as what something like 7% of our population being completely undocumented immigrants who snuck in. (Maybe more, I guess they don't really know the true number, just going with the estimates.) And I already specifically made exception for those two major immigrant groups. But let's just take Japanese, as one example. Japanese used to be in the top 3 of Asian minority populations in the United States. It has dropped down to being only the 7th or 8th biggest, in part because there is virtually zero net movement from Japan to the U.S.

Why is that, exactly?

You can't get into these topics with a really simplistic black and white view. Yes, we have a large foreign born population. But qualify where those are coming from. The U.S. is not an unquestionably "better" place to a lot of first world residents anymore. Saying "well we get a ton from China and Mexico" =/= "every country wishes they could live here instead." In fact that's setting the bar pretty low in terms of judging where's the best country to move and raise kids.

We should start a new thread. I'd love go indepth with this subject but I gotta drive back to uni and deer and cotton fields dont get the best internet connection. But I would love to show the retention rates of these "migrant" workers.:yes:

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Yeah and let's make jerking off illegal too! How dare these people waste such precious specimen? :furious3:


:2thumbsup:

[Craterus]

Apologies for resurrecting what appears to be a deceased thread. But on an ever so slightly related note, I always wondered why pro-lifers don't count their age from conception. If that's day 0, you should all be 9 months older. Depressing thought, eh?

[KrooK]

In countries such as Germany, even birth in the country does not necessarily constitute citizenship (if neither parent is German).
Its common resolution into whole Europe since XIX century. Up to 1945 Europe simply did not need additional citizens because Europeans rather left Europe and move to colonies than get back.

[Strike For The South]

Yeah and let's make jerking off illegal too! How dare these people waste such precious specimen? :furious3:


:2thumbsup:

I commit a genocide every-time I shower,

[Koga No Goshi]

I commit a genocide every-time I shower,

You are indeed killing millions of potential Strike Jrs. ;)

[Strike For The South]

You are indeed killing millions of potential Strike Jrs. ;)

probably a good thing

[Banquo's Ghost]

This thread has clearly run its course.

Thanks to those with positive contributions.

:closed: