Anti-Abortion Hypothetical Question

[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.