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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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 ?

[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. :)

[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?

[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.

[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

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.

[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.