Abortion:Constitutional Rights for the Unborn?

Question

Why not Give Constitutional Rights to the Unborn?

South Dakota recently banned almost all types of
abortion in the state. With the exception of a life or
death situation it is illegal. I cried honestly because i never
thought i would live to see it happen anywhere here in
america. Since the forces against the unborn are so strong.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/abortion_3-03.html

Hypothetically, how do you think people will react
if they overturn Roe vs Wade?Would people
will become aggressive?I am not sure what
would happen.

However...

There are many groups including many
Pro-Life Liberal groups Many ex-Abortion doctors
with shocking evidence and they will keep trying.

These are a list of Secular/Athiest Pro Life
Associations, until recently i didn't know
these groups existed.

http://www.gargaro.com/abortion/alt.html


I hope they succeed.

Answer 1

The unborn should have no more rights than the dead! If they do have rights, then let's start locking up every pregnant woman who smokes, takes a drink, drives too fast or eats fattening, unhealthy food. The right wing wackos are always crying about how they hate big government, yet they want to pass laws for people who haven't even been born! What's next, arresting people for crimes the might do in the future??? Give me a break, if you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one.

Answer 2

First of all, what happened in South Dakota is not an example of "giving constitutional rights to the unborn." That state has created a STATUTORY right for the unborn. In order to create a Constitutional right for fetuses to live, you have to do one of two things: 1) have Congress propose and the states ratify an amendment to the Constitution which says that abortion is banned, or 2) appoint to the Supreme Court a bunch of arrogant jerks who will interpret the 14th Amendment in such a way that fetuses have an equal right to live. Neither one is likely going to happen.

Overturning Roe v. Wade -- which is more realistic than the above two events -- does not ban abortion. It returns the issue to the states. If Roe is overturned, SD and other states will probably ban abortion but other states like CA, NV, NY, MA, IL and others would not ban the procedure. I'm not sure whether or not many people would like that. So how do I think people will react? Like you, I'm just not sure.

I believe it has to be overturned and it has to be simply because it was an outrageous misinterpretation of the Constitution.

Answer 3

Define "unborn human" without any religious references.

You seem to want to grant a fertilized egg the full status of a human being. OK. Based on what? What scientific or medical support do you have for your claim that a fertilized egg, or a six-week-old collection of cells should be classified as a separate independent human life?

Then assuming you can pass that hurdle, and can base your definition on something other than religion, think about the consequences.

Should a mother who has a miscarriage be charged with negligent homicide, if she did anything that could have contributed to the risk of miscarriage?

Surrogacy would no longer be allowed, absent a court order changing custody, because the fertilized egg would now have independent legal rights (as an independent human) and could challenge any attempted transfer.

Fertility clinics that provide in vitro fertilization would go out of business, because any fertilized egg that didn't grow to full term could result in charges ranging from negligent homicide to murder, even just for not implanting all of them in the mother. And if more than one fertilized were implanted, that would again be negligent homicide.

Of course, it still wouldn't stop abortions, because self-defense would always be available where there is a threat of death or serious bodily harm to the mother.

And of course, once abortions stop being legal and regulated medical practices, people will go back to doing them in back-alleys, like drugs and prostitution.

So, even if you get your constitutional amendment, it will cause more problems than it solves. And all you will have done is enact one particular religious viewpoint as a matter of constitution law. Which defeats the entire concept of personal liberty that this country was founded upon.

As to overturning Roe v. Wade, that was already partially overturned. The current case-law regarding reproductive choice was set forth twenty years later (1992) in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

But if the Supreme Court does decide that reproductive rights are not fundamental rights, if women lose the individual right to choose, all that means is that the government makes all those decisions. Face it: someone is going to choose. It's either going to be the individual, or it's going to be the majority through enacted laws. Try to imagine what could happen, if all reproductive rights are now subject to state control.

New York or Florida could pass a law saying that anyone making less than $30K per year cannot have children, and must abort any pregnancy, because they obviously cannot support them financially. No constitutional challenge, absent your brand-new amendment, because without that new amendment (just overturning existing law) reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. It's up to the states (government) to decide.

Or North Carolina or Texas decides that convicted felons should never have children, and starts imposing mandatory sterilization as part of criminal sentences. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. And since there is no fertilization at all, not even your new proposed amendment will help. Let the government decide. Right?

South Dakota has already outlawed abortion, even in the case of rape or incest or permanent harm to the mother. Then, they decide that they have too little population, and require every female under the age of 28 who is not celibate to have at least one child. Or mandating that women serve as surrogates. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. Especially with your constitutional rights for the unborn, woman can now be fully controlled by the government during all stages of reproduction.

And don't forget that with your new amendment, the federal government will now be able to enact laws in areas that it couldn't before. Congress can only act where granted power through the US Constitution. Add a constitutional amendment granting rights to the unborn (even assuming you can define that term rationally), and you open up the floodgates to any congressional laws regulating the conduct of pregnant women.

Conservatives better start praying, if they get their wish, that during that time they don't become the minority under a legislation that decides to require sterilizations, as an alternative way to protect the rights of the unborn. Because, once the right to personal choice is lost, the government will always be able to decide whether you can have children or not.

Why can't people understand that freedom of choice is not a minority value, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice?

Answer 4

Everywhere I hear people are complaining that the Government is slowly taking away our rights and freedoms. When it comes to Abortion, as sticky an issue as it is, why are people trying to be controlled?

I believe in Choice. I think I should have the choice. Pro Choice doesn't mean I'm going to go out and have an abortion, but I have the choice (If I was a woman).

If abortion becomes illegal, and a woman gets into a car accident and loses the baby, is she guilty of murder? If a woman has a miscarriage, is she guilty of murder?

Answer 5

Banning abortions is the worst thing they could do! Imagine all the illegal and unsafe abortions that will be preformed! Imagine all the children born who will suffer! They will be born to parents who don't want them! They will be abused, neglected, thrown into dumpsters or live their lives in some orphanage or foster home feeling like damaged goods cause nobody wants them! If a child is going to have a horrible life then they are better off never to exist!

Answer 6

I don't like the idea of a male dominated goverment making decisions about womens bodies. Killing thousands of innocent women and children in Iraq doesn't seem to bother the Anti abortiionists.

If the goverment succeeds in banning abortion, what do we do with all the children born to these women. Should we start building orphanages the size of state prisons to house and care for them?

Per usual, Bush and his cronies want to change existing laws without any real logical solutions to the problem.

Answer 7

This is a debate that has no answers, people will fight tooth and nail and not change anyones ideals on the subject matter. Even if it becomes constitutionally illegal for example, do you think that will stop people from terminating pregancies? no, they will look elsewhere, another country, or back ally doctor, or something, that would be much worse and in dangering then in a regulated enviroment.

I think that it should be left to the states to decide whether or not it is illegal and the voting populations of that state. But the ideals of one state should not affect the ideals of another state.

Answer 8

the concern with regulations regarding abortion and the argument that a fetus is an infant, is that for the dimensions of being pregnant an entire host of issues could reason despite if commencing up, miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion. in spite of the final scientific technologies despite if commencing up, miscarriage and spontaneous abortion do ensue at a statistically significant component (between 3-6/1000 births in stepped forward worldwide places). the a number of theoretical challenge is assigning rights to a non-self sustaining/non-sentient being. you will want to be sure a decrease back of element, and the best obvious answer is to declare that rights initiate mutually as an infant is out of the womb and born. some thing is a criminal mess. How do you tell the style between a miscarriage and an abortion? how some years in prison does a woman get for having an abortion? Are you prepared to guard the loss of life fee between found mothers seen in worldwide places the situation abortion is against the regulation? in case you opt for to lead remote from abortion, you may desire to no longer have an abortion your self. in case you will want to make abortions much less user-friendly on your society you will want to propose for desirable sexual coaching in faculties, extra beneficial get entry to to daycares at decrease fee, and a some distance extra desirable foster care gadget. those aspects decrease back the want of abortions and develop the extensive-unfold of life for many.

Answer 9

Because, scientifically speaking, the unborn isn't a person until it's born. It's a parasite, living off of it's host.

Making abortion illegal will NOT stop people from having abortions. It will only force people into risky, unsafe abortions.

Answer 10

I believe that abortion is wrong and that life begins at contraception. However HUMANITY does not begin at contraception. The fetus is as human as a tumor until it develops the ability to think at 6 months, after that it is human and killing it is murder.

Abortion is a great waste as the fetus could be removed and have its stem cells put to good use. Unfortunantly the uptight Christian majority is hindering science because an old, out of date, book of lies told them to.