Welcome to Gaia! ::

Its obvious that a fetus is not a legal person, but does that make it right? No. Why? Because it does not grant equal protection to all human beings. Why should identification be an issue? Simply because you can not identify the human you are trying to protect does not mean that we should not protect him/her. Futhermore if citizenship plays a role in whether the state protects someones life, should we not protect illegal immigrants? It is not solely the mother's interest at stake as there are two human beings' lives. The difference between the two? One can speakup for herself while the other is unable to.

Why should the state, or any entity put the decision of one above the life of another? Do not humans have a moral and ethical obilgation to protect the lives of others? If not then what about other situations where peoples lives are at risk, for example what about hurricane katrina should we have not have helped to protect/save the lives of those people? Why should a fetus' life be worth any less than theirs, solely because you deem it unworthy?

The government, or any other organization does have a direct need and interest in preventing abortion from occuring. If abortion is a private matter between her and her doctors, then should not infanticide be as well? Why draw the line when a person is born, why should one human life be more valuable than another? As for forced sterilization and making of extramarital sex illegal that is for a different debate at a different time.
Word of advice: Don't group issues together.
As for the deaths created by STDs. People know the risks of STDs when they engage in sexual activity, wheter it be marital or non. That is a choice that two consenting adults can make. When it comes to an abortion, a fetus has no say or no one to speak in favor of its interests. The fetus never consents to abortion, and even if it were able to do so, it would not have the competence to make that decision for itself, instead it needs someone else to protect his/her life.
Those are two seperate issues. But if I were to take a stand on the latter statement, I would have to say it depends. If forced sterilization were used to prevent a convicted killer who has murdered her children, from bearing anymore then I would say fine. As for women with genetic disorders, there are ways to prevent spreading genetic diseases without the use of forced steralization.

Tahpenes: Morality may not be the final say in what our government puts into law but I think it should be used as an indicator or guide as to what we do.
Our government has an obligation to protect the rights and liberites of our citizens and people residing in our country. Included in that is the right to life. If fetuses are not considered legally a person, then I believe that should be changed through a constitutional amendment.
Why not group issues together? Well, it would depend on the situation. I think if you use an issue which is a set precedent in our law to draw a similarity to then I don't see a problem, but if you try to argue two debatable issues as inseperably linked then I have a problem. Like earlier you stated that lawrence v. texas would be overturned, thus attempting two connect the two issues of gay rights and abortion. Being both gay and pro-life, I strongly dissagree with that analysis. They are seperate issues and should be debated at seperate times, I hate it when either side of the debate tries to connect them together. I believe that forced sterilization, and banning of extramarital sex, are very different issues than abortion as well.

The constitution is not always right, nor are judges' interpretations of it.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness""The 5th Amendment to the Constitution state that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" US constitution. Or if that is not enough for you "Any individual is entitled to the life, the freedom and the safety of his person" article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights. Or further for other places that recognize the right to life"1. Everyone has the right to life." the EU charter of fundemental rights. and "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. If there is no right to life, then I suppose that most major governments, constitutions, treaties regarding universal rights, and the majority of people in western nations must be wrong.


I fail to see how someone can't identify what a fetus is. Perhaps not its gender or features, but just being able to identify that it does exist and its location should be enough to give it legal rights. Personhood should start at conception in my opinion.


It only falls under the right to privacy because the supreme court has deemed fetuses the same as a piece of property. If the government were to either give fetuses legal personhood(or some type of legal status similar) either legislatively, by constitutional amendment, or via judicial interpretation, then both parties would then have to give consent to the abortion. Since the fetus cannot give consent to the abortion, doing so would be(is) a violation of its rights. Very different from the Lawrence case where both parties consent to the sexual act.
Furthermore from a prospective of what would likely happen. Both of Bush's new supreme court justices have shown some form of support or at least tolerance for gay rights. Roberts having argued in favor of Romer v. Evans, and Alito having openly supported gay rights in a survey. Both have also shown some level of opposition to abortion. Both arguing at one point that the right to an abortion isn't in the US constitution. From what I can tell, both also support the right to privacy. Now of course we don't know how they will rule, as their legal opinions may be different now that they are on the court, but there is a fairly good chance I think that one or both could uphold lawerence and possibly rule in favor of future gay rights cases, while at the same time reducing pro-abortion legal gains and possibly overturning roe v. wade. Furthermore public support is far higher for overturning sodomy laws than is for keeping abortion legal, and I hate to say it but the court does tend to vote closer to public opinion more often than it votes against it.

Well then when it attaches to the uterin wall, or whenever its first recognized as being there, I'll admit I don't know that much about the details about how the pregnancy comes about, and in reality I really don't need to know.

...wait a minute, are you actually saying that we should be passing unconstitutional legislation because the bills (may) have a moral basis?





The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for the US.




Emphasis mine.

That says that the government cannot kill you without first going through a process of judicial oversight. That is the right that you have - a right to not be killed without due process.

If you actually had a "right to life," then the government would be providing or funding emergency medical care to you. Contrast this to the "right to vote," where the government does actually make accomodations to ensure that you are able to vote (you don't just have a right to not be stopped from voting).

This is the difference between having a right "to" something and a protection from government instrusion.

For instance, with abortion - you don't have a right TO an abortion, you simply have the right to have the government not stop you from getting an abortion.


The other stuff you cited either follows the same pattern (right to not be killed without due process) or it involves a country where people actually do have a right TO medical care.




The only way an individual fetus can be identified is through the mother. Any government documents or so forth could only identify it in that manner, as the "fetus of Susan Gorshan," and all of the identifying information would actually be about HER. Granting it legal personhood would be a legal fiction, and so giving that entity legal personhood separate and distinct from the mother is not rational.

The only rationale for giving fetuses legal personhood is to control the actions of the mother. That's it. Fetuses can't possibly own property, they have no interest in bringing lawsuits, and the only "rights" they would need to protect have already been established in the mother (the fetus is only harmed when the mother is harmed); the only time this is not the case is when the mother is attempting to harm the fetus.

In that case, if a fetus had legal personhood, there would be two individuals, each fighting for legal control over the same body.

That's the only thing that giving fetuses personhood would be attempting to do: pitting the interests of the mother directly against the interests of the fetus.



No, they haven't. What's your basis for saying that fetuses are considered property?




No, that isn't true, either.

In the hypothetical situation that a fetus could be granted personhood, it just means that the fetus would have to sue to stop the woman from having a surgical operation performed to remove the fetus; the woman wouldn't be able to directly kill the fetus, but she would be able to remove it and watch it die as a result. Unless fetuses were granted rights and protections on top of what a born person has, they would not usually be successful in their suits (in other words, an activist judge might stop the woman from removing the fetus, but the law wouldn't currently stop her).

Consent isn't even an issue.

And that still wouldn't overturn Roe.




They wouldn't be able to overturn Roe without also overturning Lawrence. If you listen to their comments, even they recognize this.

The way they would limit abortion and still preserve a right to privacy under Roe would be by saying that very little a state does is an "undue burden" (rewording the Casey test), and allowing states to harass abortion providers out of existence.

That's a leap in reasoning, for sure; whether or not the government has the authority to take a person's life is separate from the issue of whether or not the government has the power to stop another from doing so.

Rights are about what the government can, cannot, or must do; it doesn't reflect on private action. In other words, if you really want to follow this train of thought, then if you had a "right to life" the government would be required to make killing illegal; since the government has the power to make killing legal in certain circumstances, such as euthanasia or after judicial oversight via the death penalty, then you do not have a right to life.




Obviously it's to control the actions of the mother, because otherwise what's the point? There's no one else to "protect" it from.

Saying that it isn't to control the mother's actions is ignoring the circumstances in which the fetus exists and ignoring the presence of the woman; the necessity of her body is what's central to this debate, and pretending otherwise doesn't do anybody any good.

We're dealing with the rights of the woman versus the rights of the fetus. If you're going to argue that the fetus's rights should trump hers, at least be honest about what you're arguing.




First off, it isn't true that they have been given "zero interest." Both Roe and Casey recognized that states have a valid interest in the fetus; if they didn't, abortion couldn't even be regulated to the extent that it is.

Secondly, just because something isn't a legal person that doesn't mean it is property. A fetus is not "the same as" property; for instance, a woman cannot sell it and she cannot copyright its DNA. It's considered part of her body, or at least under the control of it in the same way she has control of anything else living in her, and we do not own our bodies.




She didn't put that fetus there, either.

Sometimes things aren't done by anybody; sometimes they just happen and nobody was negligent so it's nobody's "fault".

First, in order for the comparison you're making to be valid, becoming pregnant would need to be like digging a hole in your yard which someone then falls into. In other words, it would need to be a deliberate act which you knew could result in someone being hurt. Unless a woman deliberately attempts to become pregnant, the comparison falls completely flat, particularly if she was using birth control.

Secondly, even if your actions result in someone else needing help and you are required to help them, you're under no obligation to put your own safety on the line to do it. If that hole on your property is filling with water and the person who fell in is going to drown, you are under an obligation to do everything reasonably necessary to help EXCEPT put yourself in danger; that may mean you don't need to do anything except call 911 then sit back and watch the person drown. Even to the extent that pregnancy is a natural and "normal" biological process, most women have some complication on top of the expected pain and physical problems which pregnancy/childbirth create.

This probably sounds rude, but I'm not entirely certain that you realize what you're asking when you propose to force women through pregnancy/childbirth. You do realize it's still the number one killer of women worldwide and that a woman in the US has a 1/2500 chance of dying in childbirth, right? neutral We're not talking about a minor inconvenience here; it isn't the same as helping somebody out of an overturned vehicle you smashed into.




I don't know where you got this idea from, but it's entirely incorrect.

Let me begin by saying that the issue in assisted suicide is not the consent of the patient; the idea is that they are going to kill themselves anyway and would like a doctor to help them out. The law permits the doctor to do so. That's why it's called assisted suicide and not a mercy killing. It's a legal fiction wherein the law is written so that the doctor doesn't "kill" so much as the doctor helps the patient with his/her own death.

If Person A and Person B agree that Person B will shoot Person A, and Person B does shoot Person A, and Person A dies as a result of that shot, it is premeditated murder in every state. It doesn't matter if Person A and Person B consented, it doesn't matter if they have a signed contract with witnesses and a notary public; it's still murder.

Consent is not at all relevant.

Moreover, the law distinguishes between active and passive killing. If the fetus was a legal person, the mother could not actively kill it. But could she remove it from its body and let it inevitably die as a result? Yes; she could.




Well, I know this because the professor I studied Constitutional Law under was watching the Alito confirmation like a hawk, and virtually all legal scholars agree.

But, if you're really interested, then go read the text of the Lawrence decision and the dissent. See if you can tell me with a straight face that Scalia and Thomas in the dissent aren't basically arguing that Lawrence is incorrect in overturning Bowers because Roe's method of analysis was bad. The real irony in arguing that either of those two would keep Lawrence and get rid of abortion rights is that Scalia's take on the right to privacy - that it must be based on rights left to the people at the time of the signing of the Constitution - would probably keep abortion legal while prohibiting sodomy.

In terms of how they're likely to vote....

Roberts has said he considers Roe valid precedent, so I don't think he's likely to vote to overturn Roe, but he also supported the Casey decision, which suggests that he's likely to continue in that line of reasoning.

And Alito has already said he would vote to overturn Roe, but failing that he would certainly join in a holding that limited abortion rights following the Casey line; he has done similar things in the past.

Kennedy also supported the Casey decision as a limit to Roe, but he didn't want Roe overturned. He actually wrote the opinion in Lawrence, which was based on the precepts in Roe.



It's likely that the five conservative justices would vote to enact limits on what is an "undue burden" rather than overturning Roe, but their support for Lawrence rests on their support for Roe. If Roe goes, so does Lawrence.



No, they couldn't do either of those. Those would definitely be the type of law which should be enacted by legislation, and they're beyond the purview of the Supreme Court.