I guess I’m stupid for thinking that this is an argument that federalism shouldn’t apply to abortion.Originally Posted by Alan
I guess I’m stupid for thinking that this is an argument that federalism shouldn’t apply to abortion.
No, you're just seeing what you want to see. My thought exercise simply suggests that if the federal government legislated a point in-vitro when all humans natural right to life began, whether that be at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 18 weeks or whatever, the states could then tailor their abortion laws with that in mind. The only real effect it would have is that those progressive states which threaten to allow abortion on demand up to the point of natural birth would have to rethink their blatant disregard for the sanctity of life. I'm not sure why you think that would be a rejection of federalism.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Trying to claim that abortion is still a state's right issue while simultaneously claiming that the federal government should be legislating that life begins at some random point during a pregnancy is silliness. By your logic abortion could still be a state's right issue with a law that after 4 weeks of pregnancy the embryo is now considered a human being with a right to life. Yet no one would be able to get an abortion anywhere because few women even know that they are pregnant at 4 weeks.
But in any case, no one who is pro choice is going to be dumb enough to trust any republican that says they think abortion is an issue for the states to decide.
I suppose that if you believe that the right to life only kicks in at the moment of natural birth, not one day sooner, you might think that. Thankfully you're still an outlier on that subject.
All states already restrict the ability of one person to take the life of another previously born person except in cases of self defense or serious bodily harm. And, virtually all states use their existing legal systems to prosecute the death of a fetus at the hands of a domestic abuser or other criminal, although not in cases of abortion. Are you implying they should not, as according to you, that fetus doesn't deserve that protection?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
The fourteenth amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It doesn't say "conceived or naturalized in the United States" or "conceived and carried through X weeks of pregnancy or naturalized". If one believes in the "originalism" concept of interpreting the constitution it's difficult to see how the idea of federalism shouldn't grant the states entire jurisdiction over whether a not yet born person has any rights.
Thank you for a considered opinion based upon something of substance. I would counter that the reference to citizens does not exclude someone not yet considered a citizen from the natural rights citizens enjoy. It even points that out in the 'nor shall any state deprive any person' section.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Even if you stipulate full humanity and rights at the moment of conception, you still need to resolve the conflict between the mother's rights and the baby's rights in a manner that considers both.
Last edited by bae; 4-22-23 at 1:30am.
Yes. And no one has determined what human values constitute the right to life, liberty and the right to happiness. If it's pure sentience, as Peter Singer maintains, a barely 8 week embryo would not have as much right to life as its mother. I'd like to know on what basis embryos should be given preferred status over a living, sentient being? In our culture, it seems that there is always a point when it is determined that one living human life is less valued vs than another. The life of a criminal is less valued than that of an upstanding member of society. The life of a Taliban is less valued than that of a flag-waving American. The life of a refugee is less valued than that of a full-fledged citizen.
And all that simply concerns the life of the born. So on what basis are you valuing the life of the unborn--the embryo--over the life of a woman who is trying to procure for herself the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
www.silententry.wordpress.com
Yes, but for the purposes of this discussion I can't imagine the moment of conception ever being memorialized as the time a group of cells becomes a person. I believe there is a point when it does, I just don't know when that might be, perhaps at the moment of viability although that seems to be a moving target with the advancement of pre/post natal care. Perhaps at the moment a fetus begins to react to outside stimulus or feels pain or something else that remains a constant. At that point I would think the fetus would qualify for the same protections previously born persons enjoy.
As for the conflict off rights when considering terminating one, I'd think that the standard of when the life of the mother or serious bodily harm may ensue, as already exists in the lawful use of lethal force, the mother's right to life takes precedence.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
And thank you for your response. My post was actually a spitball that I spent only a few minutes contemplating. And your question is something that I recognized but didn’t have an answer to.
I doubt the founders seriously considered abortion in any shape or form because it, and birth control, just weren’t a thing then. And pregnant people and their fetuses and even young birthed children, died regularly. Trying to claim that the founders had one thought or another regarding pre-humans is probably us ascribing 2000’s perspective on 1700’s people.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote