Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Gem said:Civil,
What stage of brain development are you speaking to?
elephant said:Let me start by saying thanks for the return comments from all of you.
About the "the right to life":
It is not guaranteed anywhere or implied to be guaranteed anywhere. The Declaration does not count. It is like saying a good halftime speech counts in the interpretation of U.S. law. It sounds great and defines a wonderful idea, but it does not define the LAW.
To return to Civils point about the Constitution: the framers agreed in the 14th amendment to give rights to people BORN here, not conceived here. So it is not saying that people not born here are not people (nice try), but they are not Americans and therefore not protected by the U.S. Constitution. So we start the rights when they are BORN (or are granted citizenship some other way, but it is ALWAYS after they are BORN) or at least that seems pretty clear.
OR who cares when life begins:
If I agree that life begins at conception I have some simple questions that must be addressed:
1) Is drinking while pregnant going to be against the law? It is illegal to drive while drunk, because it exposes fellow citizens to unnecessary risk. How about smoking? How about exposure to second-hand smoke?
2) If a mother-to-be does drink can the state charge her with manslaughter or murder if her she has a miscarriage? What if the mother-to-be does anything else negligent? There are many things that mothers-to-be should not do which ones will be illegal?
3) Even worse what is a mother-to-be knowingly exposes the fetus to harm leading to death or physical defect? That clearly will be a crime, right? Maybe the ones that do not die can sue the mother (after she is released from prison) for pain and suffering caused by the negligent mother.
So where do we draw the line with what rights begin when?
I look forward to your replies.
Gem said:No1toVoteFor,
Sorry, but I drinking (or smoking) while pregnant isn't against the law, its heavily discouraged. However, some doctors say that a glass of wine every few weeks is fine and if it makes you feel better during pregnancy than go for it.
Proving child endangerment when the child is unborn is still a very tricky matter in our legal system. Cases have gone both ways...
My point in this matter however, is that we are not talking about legal precedent...we are talking about the subject of abortion in general...
If we were simply talking legal precedent then the conversation would be over: abortion is legal. Case closed.
What we are discussing is whether or not the laws that we have in place today are correct, or whether they are in need of revision. To fall back to "well, its legal so it must be right." as a defense is silly and in a sense, diminishes the very legal system you are backing up...laws were meant to be studied, debated, and revised if neccessary...we have changed our forming documents to include ending slavery, allowing blacks and women the opportunity to vote, to outlaw and then re-legalize alcohol...change has happened within our legal history and will continue to do so.
Whether or not abortion laws should be among the changed and why is really what the debate is about...
Gem said:What we are discussing is whether or not the laws that we have in place today are correct, or whether they are in need of revision. To fall back to "well, its legal so it must be right." as a defense is silly and in a sense, diminishes the very legal system you are backing up...laws were meant to be studied, debated, and revised if neccessary...we have changed our forming documents to include ending slavery, allowing blacks and women the opportunity to vote, to outlaw and then re-legalize alcohol...change has happened within our legal history and will continue to do so.
Whether or not abortion laws should be among the changed and why is really what the debate is about...
no1tovote4 said:But it is. There have been laws created to this effect in many states.
http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/articles/1992stat.htm
CivilLiberty said:Every case I saw there was about COCAINE, not alcohol or tobacco!
A
In two cases, women have been arrested for drinking while pregnant. In State v. Pfannestiel, Wyoming officials brought criminal charges against a pregnant woman for drinking on the grounds that her activity, while itself legal, constituted child abuse because it endangered her fetus. The charges were dismissed on the narrow legal grounds that the state could not prove harm from the alcohol to the fetus while it was still in utero.(8) In Missouri, Lisa Pindar was charged with second-degree assault and child endangerment after her son was born, allegedly with signs of fetal alcohol syndrome?(9) In addition, at least one judge has commented approvingly on such prosecutions.(10) Surveys of these prosecutions indicate that despite evidence that illegal drug use is the same across race and class lines, women of color, and poor women are the ones who are being prosecuted.(11) Of the cases in which the race of the woman could be identified, approximately 70% involve women of color.(12)
Criminal Prosecution
Although no state has enacted a law that specifically criminalizes conduct during pregnancy, prosecutors have used statutes prohibiting abuse or neglect of children to charge women for actions that potentially harm the fetus.6 Some have also argued that pregnant women "delivered" drugs to "minor" children - fetuses - through the umbilical cord.7 In addition, a mother's or newborn's positive drug test has led to charges of assault with a deadly weapon (cocaine), contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and possession of a controlled substance.8 In cases in which infants tested positive and died soon after birth, women have been charged with homicide or feticide.9 Some women have even been prosecuted for drinking alcohol10 or failing to follow a doctor's order to get bed rest or refrain from sexual intercourse during pregnancy.11
no1tovote4 said:But it is. There have been laws created to this effect in many states.
http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/articles/1992stat.htm
Warning the site attatched to the link is very liberal.
elephant said: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.
Doesnt 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.
elephant said: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.
no1tovote4 said:"Doesnt 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?"
The Rights in the Constitution are afforded to every person within the Jurisdiction of the US but they are inalienable rights. This means that they are a right afforded to you by your existence.
CivilLiberty said:The term "inalienable rights" is not in the constitution.
The constitution makes no statement of "rights of people born in the US" until the 14th amendment, which followed the civil war, decades after the framers were dead.
Keep in mind that at the birth of our nation, "rights" meant very different things to different classes of people. Slaves has virtually no rights, women had limited rights. These "inalienable" rights you mention were certainly alienated from slaves!
Also keep in mind that until the 14th, states could have laws endorsing a specific religion, or restricting speech, or other unpleasantries. Only the FEDERAL government (congress) was restrained by the Bill or Rights.
Andy
CivilLiberty said:That's easy. Outside of US "soil", the US has no jurisdiction. A person is only required to abide by the laws of a state or nation while within the jurisdiction of that state or nation. Conversely, just because you're a US citizen does not absolve you of the requirement to abide by the laws of whatever state or nation you are presently in.
But in Canada, cuban cigars are legal, murder is not. If you commit murder in Canada, then you are criminally liable in Canada under the laws of Canada.
Andy
elephant said:That is true right now. But if abortion were made illegal here, therefore murder, would the U.S. still be ok with it citizens commiting the murder somewhere else. Murder is a capital offense. It is not a Cuban cigar.
The prosecutor could say the U.S. citizen (fetus) was taken against its will to be killed in Canada. If someone is kidnapped here then murdered in Canada is not the offender accused of a capital crime here, because the kidnapping lead to murder. If the mother is suppose to act in the best interest of the fetus, taking it to Canada, where fetus murder, as it would be under U.S.law, is practiced as medicine, seems to be a direct action leading to the cause of the citizen fetus' death. Therefore the crime started here.
Look you may think this is really pushing it but to me clearly not beyond the scope of the possibility.
So to me it is not that easy.
