Due to the prolific nature of these forums, poster aggression is advised.
I should also mention that while it's not on me to be able to carry a child to term and give birth, and thus doesn't affect me directly in that sense, there is the fact that as a male, if I were to get a woman pregnant, I have zero rights with regards to whether the child should be born, yet 100% responsibility for child support if she decides to keep the baby. And child support doesn't magically end at age 18. If something happens to the child and it is born with special needs, that child support could be a lifetime commitment.As a male, I cannot coerce a woman to have an abortion, nor can I coerce her not to. She can, however, stick me with significant problems for a very long time. A woman may choose to abort because she can't afford the child or doesn't want to have a child out of wedlock or doesn't want the responsibility. The man who contributed to the pregnancy has no such say, even though he is almost always financially and often emotionally vested in the decision.I'm not saying there are any easy answers, but I am saying that it is most certainly not a woman-only issue.
What if there's a court ruling and it is decided that the rights are applicable to the unborn child, then it is no longer subjective. What would your position be then?
Making the unborn full-fledged "persons" with respect to individual rights makes for a very, very complicated situation.
The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does not define 'person' in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to 'person.' ... . But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible prenatal application. We are not aware that in the taking of any census under this clause, a fetus has ever been counted. When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command? There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? ... All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.
... it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly. Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
Won't someone think of the fetuses!I'm scared to have that become government's new mantra. We have done so much all ready on behalf of the children. OMG a child might see a nipple. OMG a child might hear the word shit. Massachusetts is trying to push a mandatory helmet law for youth soccer players. Soon we'll have to put helmets on fetuses too
--[snip]--(By the way, if anyone here hasn't yet read Blackmun's Roe v. Wade opinion, I urge you to do so!
--[snip]-- And a mother could be forced to quit smoking under second-hand smoke laws.O brave new world.
In short, if you'll pardon the phrase, it'd be "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".
Quote from: DemosthenesIn short, if you'll pardon the phrase, it'd be "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".Why do I get the feeling that this entire thread has been one long setup for that?
Total Members: 4951