No, if a fetus was imbued with "personhood" then the issue of Rights changes because there cannot be a conflict. There would logically have to be a line in the sand established somewhere between the Rights of the Woman and the Rights of the Fetus because they cannot have conflicting Rights. In a very real sense that line in the sand has been established by the Roe v Wade decision based upon the potential personhood of the fetus. The Supreme Court's decision was based upon "potential personhood" where it highly limited third trimester abortions where the fetus is viable. The Court took the position that at viability the Fetus could be a person if it was removed from the womb and would therefore establish it's Rights as a Person because once removed from the womb it would be a baby that is a person and as a person it has inalienable Rights. Basically the decision was that a fetus isn't a person but it could be so the Court established protections for it. As I've noted previously only a Constitutional amendment could establish personhood of a fetus but pragmatically I don't see anything changing from what the Roe v Wade decision established. I don't believe that a Constitutional Amendment that attempted to establish personhood prior to the viability of the fetus would be ratified and the poll on this thread, albeit non-scientific, supports that opinion (currently it's 27:2 that the Rights of the Woman are more important). If a Constitutional amendment was ratified establishing "personhood" of the fetus at viability (which I would support) it wouldn't change the abortion laws one iota because Roe v Wade already established that criteria based upon potential personhood. This is probably why anti-abortionists don't support addressing this as a Constitutional issue. They know that nothing would change because they won't be able to get a Constitutional amendment ratified that is any different than the Roe v Wade decision. I don't know that for a fact but from a pragmatic position that's what I believe to be the case. Roe v Wade was actually an excellent decision when we read it although it doesn't address religious beliefs but instead addresses inalienable Rights and this thread was expressly created to address Rights.
Parents cannot just terminate their responsiblities. There is a process they have to go through otherwise thye would be charged with neglect. Parents cannot all of sudden say right I am not feeding our newborn child, the child would die and the parents would be held accountable for the death. The deliberate act to kill is that deliberate. It is the taking of an innocent human beings life. Also the legal system cannot define "person" anymore than it can define a tree. A tree is a tree no matter whether the legal system rcognises it as a tree or not. Playing word games and dehumanising the life in the womb might make some people feel better, and ease their concience, but it does not take away from the fact what abortion actually is.
BTW there is some validity to this. A group could be denied their inalienable Rights by a Constitutional Amendment. In fact Republicans such as Mitt Romney propose doing just this when it comes to same-sex (gender) marriage. They propose a Constitutional Amendment that would deny equal protection under the law to same-sex couples by denying them equality in establishing personal/financial partnerships as consenting adults under the marriage laws of the United States. Fortunately we have a very high standard for Constititutional Amendments and an amendment to deny same-sex (gender) couples would never be ratified. We do or should address the fact that Constitutional Amendments should expand the protections of our inalienable Rights and should never be used to restrict or infringe upon our inalienable Rights. That was the problem with the 18th Amendment (prohibition). It was an Amendment infringing upon the Rights of the Individual as opposed to protecting anyone's inalienable Rights. We know that this type of amendment can be ratified but they go against the very ideals upon which America was founded. Apparently we still haven't learned from the 18th Amendment because the "social conservatives" are promoting another amendment to infringe upon our inalienable Right to form associations based upon voluntary consent of adults that are entitled to equal protection under the law.
This might be interesting if it weren't based on the nonsensical premise that the rights of the unborn are somehow unique in their potential to generate illusory conflicts with the rights of others; but of course those who are clueless about the nature of unalienable rights can be expected to swallow that ideological camel without so much as a hiccup. It's this sort of drivel that lends legitimacy to Bush 41's reported expression of doubt as to whether atheists ought to be considered American citizens, and that ought to remind us that brain-damaged monkeys will understand the Constitution before any dogmatic atheist ever does.
This can be addressed by analogy based upon property rights of the individual. If a person enters someone's home and becomes an unwanted guest they can be evicted by the property owner. The right of property gives the homeowner this authority. A zygote or embryo that is unwanted is violating the property rights of the woman that owns her own body.
So if I lease my house to you, then part way through the lease I change my mind part way through, I can just kick you out of the house because you are violating my property rights?
So if the owner comes home at 9pm and finds an infant on the doorstep, he is within his rights to put it out on the curb and forget it even if it's 20°F outside. Have I got that about right?
I say the defenseless are entitled to their rights (right to life being first), promised each generation of Americans since the Declaration of Independence. The aborted unborn have committed no crime but suffer termination through dismemberment and other tortures. The American right of due process is denied them.
As long as the conditions of the voluntary contract are being met then no, the person could not be evicted. I'm unaware of any women that voluntarily become pregnant and then want an abortion but it probably does happen in very rare cases. It would be my personal belief that most abortions relate to unwanted pregnancies.
No, the person should do the same thing that they would do if someone was in there house against their will. Call local law enforcement to pick up the abandoned infant.
Because...? The law doesn't require the owner to turn the adult and able-bodied intruder over to LE, nor does the owner violate the natural rights of that intruder by forcibly expelling him from the premises himself... ...not to mention, of course, that the owner cannot, at least in the US, reasonably expect a non-violent intruder to be dead within minutes of calling the police.
Any woman who voluntarily engages in unprotected sex accepts all of the potential consequences of that unprotected sex - including pregnancy.
She accepts that pregnancy is a possibility, but she retains the right to deal with the pregnancy as she thinks best.
would it make a difference, then ever women would say they used protection, protection fails, abortion is a last resort for 99.9999% of the people that have one
Only if abortion is legal. If abortion is made illegal, then the woman accepts that pregnancy which must be carried to term is a possibility of having unprotected sex.
Good reason to keep abortion legal getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy seems a good way of dealing with 1
If you believe that I have a lovely story about Santa and the Elves.............. Where I live abortion IS illegal - guess what? Same rates of abortion as the states (more of less) in those countries where abortion is not only illegal but forbidden (yes there is a difference) the maternal mortality is jaw dropping http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/ Now a question for those who think women choose abortion because it is "easier" What would drive a woman to risk her health and her life at the hands of a backyard butcher if she could simply take a pill??
