Except that no where in Roe was the fetus EVERY deemed as property, unlike a slave, nor has a fetus been seen as part of the females body since science found it to be a separate entity. Furthermore prior to the 14th Amendment almost any person, no matter there colour could be deemed the property of another. The Supreme Court at that time had no Constitutional power to stand against slavery, that did not occur until the enactment of the 14th Amendment so even if they had wanted to do something about it they couldn't, it took an amendment to give them that power ergo the answer for pro-lifers would be to go through the correct procedure and attempt to get an amendment added to the Constitution that recognises the personhood status of the unborn .. though in my opinion that would still not mean abortion becoming banned. What the author of the OP is trying to do is to create a false equivalence fallacy ie comparing two things that seem alike but are in fact different. Had Roe (or any other case concerning abortion) deemed the unborn as the property of the female then the comparison would be correct, that has never happened. This type of comparison is nothing more than an attempt to engage a emotional guilt complex ie no one wants to be associated with slavery so if a link between slavery and abortion can be forged it is expected that people will turn away from pro-choice. The same emotional guilt complex projection is attempted when pro-lifers try to forge links between Nazism and abortion. Both are dishonest and illogical.
Silly, oft-debunked, ridiculous comparison. The REAL comparison is with slavery and the Anti-Choice crowd : Slave owners bred slaves like animals and FORCED them give birth..... slave women had no CHOICE.
A slave had limited rights also. For instance in some states an owner was criminally liable if he/she killed a slave if the slave was not being physically aggressive. What you are avoiding is that you view a fetus as property of the female. Which is exactly how slaves were viewed. Human lives owned, with no rights or limited rights and considered a subclass of human life.
I suggest you read saspatz post #26 Yet another failure, I do not nor have I ever viewed the fetus as the property of the female, PLEASE do find where I have EVER stated that, or is this yet again a pro-lifer projecting what the want to believe instead of what is reality, and you can keep the emotional BS as well because, yet again, I have never claimed that the fetus is "a subclass of human life" .. In fact I have consistently said for quite some time now, it really doesn't bother me in the slightest if the unborn were recognised as persons .. it would make little to no difference to abortion. What you and the OP author are avoiding is the FACT that nowhere in ANY legislation dealing with abortion is the fetus said to be property, where as it is there in black and white (no pun intended) in legislation dealing with slavery ergo the reason a slave was not a person was because they were legally deemed as property, a fetus is not seen as a person because it does not meet the constitutional requirement to be a person (rightly or wrongly) . .nothing at all to do with being property ergo the OP is a false equivalence fallacy. Did slaves have rights? Laws Pertaining to Slaves It is plain to see that it was not the slaves who had rights, it was their owners who could claim payment should a slave be killed by a third party who did not have permission to do so. This payment was in recompense for their loss of property.
The 13th Amendment states that no person shall be forced into involuntary servitude. That's what Roe v. Wade enforces. The argument AGAINST slavery and FOR abortion rights is that no person can be required to use their body against their will (bodily autonomy). Pro-lifers are for extraordinary rights for the unborn--the right to sustain their lives by the use of a person's body parts including the right to inflict damage and health/life risks on that person.
The whole OP is a dismal failure anyway . .slaves were property, the unborn have never been property.
It pro-lifers cared as much about people as they do zygotes, they would be liberals. Their concern for the unborn ends at birth. In reality, the only thing that drives them is religion and faith which is a horrible basis to formulate law.
The legal status of the embryo is a matter of significant debate in family law due to the advent of IVF. In divorce cases where the couple has undergone IVF and had frozen embryos in common, the disposition of those embryos has been a matter of legal contention. "The law will continues to be molded by the facts and circumstances of each particular divorce and the personal views of the presiding judge, rather than upon the guidance of established legal precedent. The few courts that have expressed their views on the issue have been inconsistent in their characterizations of frozen embryos. These courts have adopted three divergent theories on the legal status of a frozen embryo: Some have decided to grant frozen embryos all the legal rights of humans as they are biologically alive and have the potential to be born. This theory distinguishes the Supreme Courts holding in Roe v. Wade on grounds that the embryos were created with the intent of producing human life and, consequently, no reproductive rights have been violated. Other courts have recognized frozen embryos as property, advancing the argument that frozen embryos are akin to human tissue in their legal status as property. In trying to reconcile the arguments made by both sides on the debate, a third position has been adopted by some courts that embryos require a special respect and status: not quite human life but something more than just mere property. All three positions have been adopted in actual divorce litigation by courts. Most remarkably, all three positions were adopted by three different courts during the divorce proceedings of a single Tennessee couple in Davis v. Davis. In Davis, the husband sought a declaratory judgment that the frozen embryos were marital property jointly held by the couple, which would have the ultimate effect of preventing the wife from implanting the embryos without her estranged husbands consent. At trial, the Circuit Court for Blount County adopted the position that it had an obligation to act in the best interests of the unborn child as parens patriae. Under such a theory, the Court was obliged to grant the estranged wife custody of the frozen embryos so that she could implant them and ensure their continued survival." http://www.macelree.com/the-legal-u...ozen-embryos-in-american-divorce-proceedings/ For those courts that treat the embryo as property; Would that be a legal equivalence to slavery? Why or why not?
The case you are referring to did not at anytime deem the preembryos as property. The Supreme Court of Tennessee agreed with the Court of Appeals that preembryos lack legal personhood, but it also felt that the Court of Appeals went too far towards treating the preembryos as property. Though the Court of Appeals had not explicitly stated that the preembryos were property, it had awarded Junior and Mary Sue joint custody, reflecting the parties joint interest in the preembryos without clearly defining that interest. The full case details can be found here -http://embryo.asu.edu/pages/davis-v-davis-1992
In YORK v. JONES the preembryos were classified as objects of property http://www.leagle.com/decision/19891138717FSupp421_11078.xml/YORK v. JONES As informed by American Fertility Society in their Ethical Statement on in vitro fertilization. The American Fertility Society found: It is understood that the gametes and concepti are the property of the donors. The donors therefore have the right to decide at their sole discretion the disposition of these items, provided such disposition is within medical and ethical guidelines as outlined herein. The Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, Ethical Considerations of the New Reproductive Technologies, 46 Fertility and Sterility 89s (1986).
When they determine you have no brain function, especially in the frontal lobe, they can often do take you off life support. Know why, it because there is no one home any longer
In YORK v. JONES the preembryos were classified as objects of property http://www.leagle.com/decision/19891...K v. JONES As informed by American Fertility Society in their Ethical Statement on in vitro fertilization. The American Fertility Society found: It is understood that the gametes and concepti are the property of the donors. The donors therefore have the right to decide at their sole discretion the disposition of these items, provided such disposition is within medical and ethical guidelines as outlined herein. The Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, Ethical Considerations of the New Reproductive Technologies, 46 Fertility and Sterility 89s (1986).
This is The American Fertility Society making the statement not the court ergo the court is not defining pre-embryos as property. It is an interesting dilemma though and it shows that through the various court cases that various decisions are being made, what is required IMO is to define a new ethical standard regarding pre-embryos, such as discussed here - http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=dltr
Crossed comprehension, the comment wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at the OP and it's author ie another thread that shows a distinct lack of knowledge of the US laws and history .. standard really.
Nope, Life begins when it begins to grow. I use it to define when there can possibly be a Person present since, that is where We as a Person must reside. It is simply Common Sense backed by Logic and actual Science. This is why I do not have problems with limiting abortions after the point where a brain and formed enough for a Person to now be present and have no issue with them before that is in the beginning it only has potential to develop into a person. Not a difficult concept to grasp if one honestly sits down and defines what Life is and what a Person is.
Slavery was not pro-choice. The slave masters had nothing about their existence that gave them power over another independent(in that each slave was a separate entity, not a part of someone else) person. The distinctions that allowed slavery to exist were superficial and entirely fabricated for economic and social gain. Other than melanin, there was no difference between a slave owner and a slave. The same cannot be said, at least if one places any value on honesty, about a fetus and a born person which is why this comparison has always been and always will be a desperate hail mary argument but even then, this turd is rolling end over end and heading into the bleachers.
In YORK v. JONES http://www.leagle.com/decision/19891138717FSupp421_11078.xml/YORK v. JONES "The Court begins its analysis by noting that the Cryopreservation Agreement created a bailor-bailee relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants. While the parties in this case expressed no intent to create a bailment, under Virginia law, no formal contract or actual meeting of the minds is necessary. Morris v. Hamilton, 225 Va. 372, 302 S.E.2d 51, 52 (1983). Rather, all that is needed "is the element of lawful possession however created, and duty to account for the thing as the property of another that creates the bailment...." Crandall v. Woodard, 206 Va. 321, 143 S.E.2d 923, 927 (1965). The essential nature of a bailment relationship imposes on the bailee, when the purpose of the bailment has terminated, an absolute obligation to return the subject matter of the bailment to the bailor. 8 Am.Jur.2d Bailments § 178 (1980). The obligation to return the property is implied from the fact of lawful possession of the personal property of another. Id." Clearly categorizing the pre-embyos as property. You're right, the ethical standards around pre-embryos are a matter of social importance and will shape the future of stem-cell research and bio-engineering. The idea of creating a special status for pre-embryos that categorizes them as neither "persons" under the law nor as simple property, is an interesting one.
So, you would call an fetus a "person" after it reaches a specific level of brain development? Where, specifically would you draw that line?
How about when it can register thought, I am sure the doctors can determine where that point is and if it has been reached, they are the scientists not you or I. Thing is most abortions take place long before any such thing occurs.
Just as some people regard pregnant women as human beings deserving of being treated as people - which is what they are. The people who claim to be pro life never think of the rights or wishes of the pregnant woman.
We don't have the technology to measure thought yet. We do have the technology to measure brain activity. Human thought experiments are based on brain activity. Where activity is present in the frontal cortex, thought is present. Are you aware of the legal definition of death? We consider an individual dead when the brain, including the brain stem, ceases to function. Would the following condition - when the brain begins to function in the frontal cortex be a reasonable benchmark?
I prefer to leave to those with the expertise to make the determination, those with the Medical field with the specialized knowledge required, no one else is qualified. Writing laws based emotion or beliefs and ignoring science is insane, especially when they attempt to deal with Medical issues.
