I do accept the premise that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights, except that the person holding them may voluntarily give them up.
Your answer is a bit confused. An
inalienable right means the person cannot surrender it. What I expected you to say (and I think this is what you mean) is that you believe in some form of a right to life, but that it is not an absolute right. I would actually agree with that - and even from a theological perspective - if theology is ever something you consider.
In a literal context (which is the way lawyers tend to argue cases), "inalienable" becomes a very strange and unworkable concept. I think Jefferson's idea was that people should not be coerced in some abusive manner to give up that right. I agree with that concept, but it would need to be codified in a different way.
Wrong. Cases serve as precedent. The Declaration of Independence does not serve as precedent.
Law is not my thing, but, shocking as it may seem, I'm not inclined to take your opinion on such matters. So, I decided to do a quick search. What I found was a study were 100 cases were listed citing the Declaration of Independence (DoI) (
The United States Supreme Court and The Declaration of Independence). Now, what those cases could be claiming was that the DoI was not law. However, a further search found that the reason the Supreme Court cites the DoI so often is that it is listed in the U.S. Code as "organic law" (
The Declaration of Independence Part of American Law). Now, I realize the DoI is not, in and of itself a precedent, but that seems a mere semantic issue to me. If it has been cited in a case, then that case becomes precendent, and hence the cited principle becomes precedent.
Are we going to play these semantic games? I hope not.
But I can't give a blanket answer. You started by asking about whether a fetus is a person--which is addressed by Common Law--then switched to the Declaration of Independence--which has been interpreted by American courts and which does not present Common Law issues.
Yes, it was my fault for confusing the issue. We need to clarify whether we are discussing this based on our opinions or based on what is legal in the U.S. However, what makes it more difficult for me is that you rarely give me your opinion straight out. Instead, you point to other things (English common law, Roe V. Wade, etc.) and tell me that it explains everything. It doesn't explain your opinion, as I have no idea which specific part of that massive body of work you are referring to.
If you want to cite a case to back up your opinion, fine. But please tell me specifically what conclusion you are drawing from that case. I still don't know if you consider the fetus to be a person at any stage of its development. I've just been assuming you might at some point based on statements about how it depends on the stage of development.
What you say most often is that the question of personhood is irrelevant. But that is not true, and I will comment more on that in a bit.
If you have read Roe v. Wade you know that Justice Blackmun addressed this very issue.
As I said, law is not my thing. So, I have read summaries of the case, but not the actual court documents themselves. In my understanding, the case raised the issue of personhood, but didn't settle it. It said that
if the fetus were a person, it would have rights, but that this issue had not been settled, and that the court didn't intend to settle that issue. Then the ruling goes on from there to say the state has no authority to regulate abortion in the first trimester. I find that a humorous contradiction. I've been involved in adoption cases, and the state steps in as an advocate for the rights of the minor child. To say, then, that the state has no authority in the first trimester is to say no one can advocate for the rights of the fetus, which means the fetus has no rights, which means they have declared that it is not a person.
Regardless, I don't really care what Blackmun said. I'm interested in your opinion. If you are saying you agree with Blackmun, then I would conclude that you do not think the fetus is a person. If that is not the case, or if Blackmun made some dissenting comments that I am unaware of, please clarify. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, saying you've answered my question by mentioning Roe v. Wade is no answer at all.
And here is why the issue of personhood
is relevant. The court has said it will not define whether a fetus is a person. I think it was right for them to take that position. That responsibility lies with the legislature. So, if the U.S. Congress were to declare a fetus a person, Roe v. Wade would be negated. If you supported the idea that the fetus is a person, then I would think you would support legislation to make that happen.
And you are entitled to your opinion.
Don't give me that. If I could, I would make it (requiring doctors to try saving the child if such procedure applies) a legal requirement, and then it would be more than my opinion. I'm asking for more than a social nicety, and you know that. What is your opinion? If the procedure were available to save
both the mother
and the child, do you think the mother has the right to refuse that procedure and abort the child? In other words, in cases where both lives could be saved, and even though the opinion of the medical professional involved is that both lives could be saved, she has the right to choose to save her life and end the life of the child?
So a pregnant woman should be forced to have an operation against her will? What about her unalienable right to liberty?
It's not an operation against her will. She's already asked for the abortion, which is an operation. Instead, she would be pressed to accept an alternative operation.
And here is what I simply cannot understand. Why are you so intensely worried about the rights of the woman, but give no indication that you have any concern about the rights of the child? If the woman has the liberty to refuse the operation, why doesn't the child have that same liberty to refuse the operation?
I'm not asking you to answer with another court case. I'm asking for your opinion. Straight out. Yes or no. In your opinion, should the fetus have any rights?
