Prosecutors clearly do not attempt to charge every mother-to-be that they could with endangerment, manslaughter or murder, currently. I hope that we agree about that.
There are way too many actions that a mother-to-be could engage in that could endanger the fetus. Many of these activities are NOT harmful to the mother. Where is the line? Well it seems to currently be drawn at birth, maybe purely for practical reasons. Should bartenders give pregnancy tests to every woman they serve. They would be partially responsible for the death of the fetus if the drink they served contributes to the miscarriage or deformation of the fetus. They are knowingly acting in a potentially reckless manner – any woman could be pregnant.
How does the law begin to deal miscarriages? They will ALL need to be autopsied. Any pregnant woman not getting basic healthcare will be negligent. If I am not mistaken about 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Sure it was not the intention of the mother-to-be to spontaneously abort, but people do not intend to kill people driving to work in the morning either. Both would have to be equally investigated and potentially prosecuted under this new system.
How would the law address U.S. citizens committing “murder” outside the U.S. and then returning U.S.? I know the U.S. does not prosecute people who smoke Cuban cigars while in Canada, but murder seems a little different.
How about this one:
A woman gets pregnant and has a miscarriage. Doctors tell the woman and her husband she will probably never be able to carry a pregnancy to term. She and her husband decide to try having a child again. Once again she has a miscarriage. Well if “the right to life” begins at conception and she and her husband knew the risk was she might murder the second fetus she and her husband have knowingly acted recklessly and caused a death. What should happen to them?
Now to the Constitution:
My point is not about what right the 14th amendment gives to people. It is about when. Nowhere, in any documents which anyone has mentioned, does any right start at conception. You are arguing you would like it to, but the words are not there, nor does the intention seem to be there. The framers consistently chose being born as the defining moment. Illegal aliens have already been born. Their fetuses are not citizens. If an illegal alien gives birth here, then POOF the child is a citizen. If the U.S. government sends them back across the border then the child is born, then POOF not a citizen. Citizens and non-citizens seem to all be BORN. That is clearly an important deciding moment that the framers were interested in using. I am okay with it. They were not interested in protecting the unborn when they wrote the Declaration or the Constitution. So maybe the rights do not begin until someone is born.
DoesnÂ’t the Constitution afford more than one right to people born in the U.S. and not to life conceived in the U.S.? The framers would have said conceived if they meant conceived, no?
Question to no1tovote4 about the Declaration:
I am not trying to put you on the spot, but you seem to know something about the law. I would be interested in seeing a case where the “right to life” from the Declaration was used as an argument and won, thereby setting the precedent.
This post is getting too long sorry.
Look forward to your ideas.
