Anti-Abortion Hypothetical Question

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Well written post.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Thank you for clarifying it so eloquently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

- 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?

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

- 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

GAH!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

\US citizenship is nothing so great :)

---

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

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.

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis

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

Pennsylvania

Missouri

Arkansas

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.)

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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:

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


:2thumbsup:

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

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,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I commit a genocide every-time I shower,

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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

---

probably a good thing