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"

[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?