Anti-Abortion Hypothetical Question

[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?

[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. :)

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

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

[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?

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. ;)

[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.

[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

[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.