Religion and Moral Status of the Pre-born

[jayem]

A child isn't an adult. Any point in a person's life is arguably a phase in human development.

But personhood, in the legal sense, occurs at birth. (And this is regardless of immaturity.) It appears that a state may be able to move it back to some point in utero. But that will only apply within the state. For the unborn to have the legal status of personhood, with 14th Amendment rights in all the states, will require amending the Constitution.

 

[durangodawood]

...False.

Abortion is Unconstitutional | John Finnis

If a fetus is constitutionally a "person", the court just had their best opportunity to say so.

But did even one of the most conservative justices make that point?

 

[Ana the Ist]

But personhood, in the legal sense, occurs at birth. (And this is regardless of immaturity.) It appears that a state may be able to move it back to some point in utero. But that will only apply within the state. For the unborn to have the legal status of personhood, with 14th Amendment rights in all the states, will require amending the Constitution.

Sorry, please keep in mind that I'm not trying to argue for a position here.....I don't intend to argue this state has it right, that state has it wrong

Sure, I haven't seen anything that would dispute your statement. A legal distinction or line has to be drawn somewhere and I think it's amusing that the same group that includes people who argue for free and open borders also now draw this legal border between "person" and "bundle of flesh" at the very specific border of the womb.

Nevertheless it has to be drawn somewhere, and whether that is the moment of conception or the moment after birth...it's going to be drawn.

Given the left's position on vaccine mandates, given their position on personhood, and given the state of climate change and increasing viral calamity....

Would you approve of the state forcibly removing these non persons from the wombs of women under certain emergency conditions?

But personhood, in the legal sense, occurs at birth. (And this is regardless of immaturity.) It appears that a state may be able to move it back to some point in utero. But that will only apply within the state. For the unborn to have the legal status of personhood, with 14th Amendment rights in all the states, will require amending the Constitution.

 

[mark46]

Sorry, please keep in mind that I'm not trying to argue for a position here.....I don't intend to argue this state has it right, that state has it wrong

Sure, I haven't seen anything that would dispute your statement. A legal distinction or line has to be drawn somewhere and I think it's amusing that the same group that includes people who argue for free and open borders also now draw this legal border between "person" and "bundle of flesh" at the very specific border of the womb.

Nevertheless it has to be drawn somewhere, and whether that is the moment of conception or the moment after birth...it's going to be drawn.

Given the left's position on vaccine mandates, given their position on personhood, and given the state of climate change and increasing viral calamity....

Would you approve of the state forcibly removing these non persons from the wombs of women under certain emergency conditions?

Legal personhood does not apply to the unborn. That is just the way it is in the US, and everywhere else.

That being said, there are, and should be, laws with regard to those who would damage a fetus, certainly after viability. Since abortions of viable fetuses should only be availability pursuant to a judge's order, I do believe that a judge could reject such an abortion request and even order a premature caesarian delivery.

To be clear, if someone beats up a woman and kills the fetus, he has definitely committed a crime. It is a different crime that killing a person, but it is still a crime, and could yield severe punishment.

 

[disciple Clint]

Faith based judgements about when its proper to apply the word "person".

I do not understand your post

 

[disciple Clint]

As was noted, you are quoting a group who literally started, in 2002, as an Anti-homosexual group, as they were opposed to adoption of children by gays. As noted, they have "hundreds" of members, most of whom are not Pediatricians, my recollection is a large percentage of their membership are not even doctors. They claim their membership is "physicians and other healthcare professionals." Their opinions are not based on science but informed by their beliefs -- and then they use whatever claims (regardless of the truth) to try and support their beliefs.

So it is ok to make assumptions about the beliefs of others and question the validity of the opinion of doctors? Please provide any evidence that is available to support your position on when life begins

 

[disciple Clint]

The issue is not biology. It’s law. Nowhere does the Constitution say, or even imply, that a zygote is legally a person. As mistaken as the Dodds decision is, the conservative SCOTUS majority knew they couldn’t just declare that the unborn are persons. The issue was essentially left to the states. To grant legal personhood status to the unborn nationwide, at all stages of pregnancy, will require a Constitutional amendment.

Think about it: An acorn is not an oak tree. A tadpole is not a bullfrog. A caterpillar is not a butterfly. Potentiality is not the same as actuality.

please provide any evidence that exists to support your opinion. The court has spoken.

 

[durangodawood]

please provide any evidence that exists to support your opinion. The court has spoken.

....and did not say anything about "personhood". If they did think personhood begins at conception constitutionally, they wouldnt have kicked it down to the states. Instead they would say equal protection applies and abortion would be nationally unconstitutional. They didnt do that.

 

[disciple Clint]

....and did not say anything about "personhood". If they did think personhood begins at conception constitutionally, they wouldnt have kicked it down to the states. Instead they would say equal protection applies and abortion would be nationally unconstitutional. They didnt do that.

I do not pretend to speak for the court but their decision seems clear. There are also other legal evidence of personhood such as murder charges for the death of an undelivered child when the mother is killed and also civil actions for the death of unborn children related to negligence such as auto accidents.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I do not pretend to speak for the court but their decision seems clear. There are also other legal evidence of personhood such as murder charges for the death of an undelivered child when the mother is killed and also civil actions for the death of unborn children related to negligence such as auto accidents.

But no charges for an actual abortion.

 

[durangodawood]

I do not pretend to speak for the court but their decision seems clear. There are also other legal evidence of personhood such as murder charges for the death of an undelivered child when the mother is killed and also civil actions for the death of unborn children related to negligence such as auto accidents.

States may have their own views, per your examples above.

But if there was a US Constitution presumption of fetal personhood, it would not be up to the states. Yet the court kicked it down to the states. Even the most conservative justices were totally silent on US constitutional personhood.

 

[SimplyMe]

I do not pretend to speak for the court but their decision seems clear. There are also other legal evidence of personhood such as murder charges for the death of an undelivered child when the mother is killed and also civil actions for the death of unborn children related to negligence such as auto accidents.

Yes, the Supreme Court decision was quite clear, they decided that the Constitution does not include a right to abortion. Instead, they left it to states to make decisions on abortion. The Court didn't rule if abortion was immoral or moral, much less if a fetus is a person. All they did is say that it isn't in the Constitution and allow the States to make their own decisions on abortion.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Yes, the Supreme Court decision was quite clear, they decided that the Constitution does not include a right to abortion. Instead, they left it to states to make decisions on abortion. The Court didn't rule if abortion was immoral or moral, much less if a fetus is a person. All they did is say that it isn't in the Constitution and allow the States to make their own decisions on abortion.

Yes, so now the states decide. But based on what?

I think that it is more often a religious argument than a nonreligious argument. That is not to say a good argument cannot be made without religion. The being in the womb is human, ergo a human being...not just a body part or even intruder or parasite. As a human being it ought to have some rights, at least a right to exist.

If his or her existence threatens the life of the mother, exceptions should be considered.

 

[mark46]

Yes, the Supreme Court decision was quite clear, they decided that the Constitution does not include a right to abortion. Instead, they left it to states to make decisions on abortion. The Court didn't rule if abortion was immoral or moral, much less if a fetus is a person. All they did is say that it isn't in the Constitution and allow the States to make their own decisions on abortion.

Yes, because there is no constitutional right to privacy, AND there is no federal statute.

I believe that the Court simply bowed out. There is no constitutional issue. Now it is up to state and federal legislature, and also state and federal executive action.

Conservatives want Congress to ban abortion. The progressives want Congress to allow all abortions. The issue is NOT federal vs. state jurisdiction. Rather, it is legislative vs. judiciary jurisdiction.

 

[rjs330]

You're personal feelings and opinions about the issue, while completely valid, do not in any way rebut or invalidate the bodily autonomy of the woman, and that's the issue.

The State can not compel a person to donate or use any part of their body to keep another person alive without their consent even after they are dead. Personhood is irrelevant to that. Do you have a refutation for that?

The difference is keeping someone alive who is dying and deliberately killing someone because you don't want them alive.

You think it's moral to deliberately kill another human being because you don't want them?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

The difference is keeping someone alive who is dying and deliberately killing someone because you don't want them alive.

You think it's moral to deliberately kill another human being because you don't want them?

No, I think it's immoral to force a person to use their body against their will to keep another person alive.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

No, I think it's immoral to force a person to use their body against their will to keep another person alive.

That is the dilemma of the debate. Is it not?

Immoral to force a person to use their body against their will to keep another person alive.

and yet also

Immoral to deliberately kill another human being because you don't want them?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

That is the dilemma of the debate. Is it not?

Immoral to force a person to use their body against their will to keep another person alive.

and yet also

Immoral to deliberately kill another human being because you don't want them?

So, how do we decide? Does the unambiguous person with all conferred legal rights win or does the ambiguously potential "person" who has no history or experience as a human being living in the world win? How do you determine one person's rights are more valuable or more "right" than another's?

If anti-abortion advocates were so concerned with actually preserving that life then they should pool their research dollars and develop a way to gestate a human embryo outside a womb. Once that tech was common place, then allow women to give over their embryo to that process instead of aborting it. Everybody wins.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So, how do we decide? Does the unambiguous person with all conferred legal rights win or does the ambiguously potential "person" who has no history or experience as a human being living in the world win? How do you determine one person's rights are more valuable or more "right" than another's?

If anti-abortion advocates were so concerned with actually preserving that life then they should pool their research dollars and develop a way to gestate a human embryo outside a womb. Once that tech was common place, then allow women to give over their embryo to that process instead of aborting it. Everybody wins.

Maybe so.

 

[FireDragon76]

Acknowledging fetal humanity (and subsequent rights) is not an exercise in theocracy.
It is just compulsively spun that way by the opposition... and they know it!

Merely being human doesn't confer personhood. Somebody that is brain dead and incapable of subjectivity arguably should not be regarded as a person with the same interests as an adult human who has hopes, dreams, aspirations, and can experience suffering or happiness.