Thread: Legal opposition to Roe V Wade?

Really when you get right down to brass tax the only way to destroy the argument is to define when life starts.

Medically does it begin with a heartbeat? Religiously does it begin at conception? Does life start when a life is viable? What does it mean to be a viable life?

If you cease having a viable life does that mean that you cease to be a person with rights?

If you say that life begins with a heart beat, what if the heart stops inutero? How does the state deal with the number of still births and spontaneous abortions, aka miscarriages.

If life begins at conception (the process of fertilization or implantation or both) then again what about miscarriage, still births etc.

Do we need to issue a SSN to every conceived fetus? Do they get benefits, rights, etc. Look at the paper work man.

Scenario:

You and your wife are finally expecting that lovely baby. All the urine tests come back. You go to the SS office and apply for a SSN for Jr. Two weeks later your wife miscarries. Now you have to declare Jr dead, how? There is nothing to necropsy. A blood test before and after would say that your wife has elevated hormone levels before and decreased levels afterward. What does the ME put as cause of death? I would guess natural causes but I have no idea. How do you filter out the fraud? What happens when we run out of numbers?

To split a hair here I see no real difference other than 1 or 2 weeks between a medically viable and a religiously viable fetus.

I am done with my soapbox.

Apologies if this argument hits too close to home for some.

Okay...so after a little further review. Is the key here the 14th and 9th amendments?

A quick perusal of them: the 14th amendment is saying that people born in the US are citizens of the United States, right?

Does the protection under the law extend only to citizens? If person were a citizen of France and came to the US on holiday, could I therefore stab him/her to death, just because they were not a citizen? That is outrageous! And a rather poor defense argument against the possible rights of the unborn, citizen yet, or not.

Or what am I missing in regards to what part of the 14th is used to justify the legality of abortion?

Would it be the due process clause:
"procedural due process rights requiring that certain steps, such as a hearing, be followed before a person's "life, liberty, or property" can be taken away."

Shouldn't that then require a hearing at least, before an unborn's life be taken away? Or is that the catch, that in regards to the due process clause, the fact that the unborn is not yet a citizen, and thus can be denied due process?


The 9th is basically a place holder, as every concievable "right" could obviously not be writen into the Constitution one by one, right?

But they use that as an argument that "since the Constitution didn't say that we couldn't have abortions on demand, that therefore it must be a right under the 9th?!" Is that right?

I don't think they spelled out in the Constitution that my possible desire to smoke marijuana, snort cocaine and mainline heroin should be denied, and therefore, under the 9th it should clearly be my right!

Originally Posted by singlewedge

If you say that life begins with a heart beat, what if the heart stops inutero? How does the state deal with the number of still births and spontaneous abortions, aka miscarriages.

If life begins at conception (the process of fertilization or implantation or both) then again what about miscarriage, still births etc.

Do we need to issue a SSN to every conceived fetus? Do they get benefits, rights, etc. Look at the paper work man.

Scenario:

You and your wife are finally expecting that lovely baby. All the urine tests come back. You go to the SS office and apply for a SSN for Jr. Two weeks later your wife miscarries. Now you have to declare Jr dead, how? There is nothing to necropsy. A blood test before and after would say that your wife has elevated hormone levels before and decreased levels afterward. What does the ME put as cause of death? I would guess natural causes but I have no idea. How do you filter out the fraud? What happens when we run out of numbers?

To split a hair here I see no real difference other than 1 or 2 weeks between a medically viable and a religiously viable fetus.

I am done with my soapbox.

Apologies if this argument hits too close to home for some.

Sounds like you are putting the cart before the horse in your arguments here.

Umm, as far as I know, with death by natural causes the state does not have to get involved in for anybody? Are you implying they need to somehow press charges?

And who said that you have to issue a SSN? That person is still 65years +9months away from recieving retirement benefits anyhow! Plenty of time for that paperwork later. All I'm asking for here is a legal protection for the unborn, not a labor union for higher wages for them!

Originally Posted by singlewedge

Really when you get right down to brass tax the only way to destroy the argument is to define when life starts.

Medically does it begin with a heartbeat? Religiously does it begin at conception? Does life start when a life is viable? What does it mean to be a viable life?

Okay this is getting closer to my original argument.

Say a woman has an abortion, that the father did not want her to have. Why cannot he use the aborted embryo/fetus as evidence? "Look your Honor, this unborn child had just as much of my DNA as it did of hers, I demand Justice,a s it was not HER body she was terminating!" Or something along those lines. The scientific evidence is there, whether in utero, or after an abortion. That is what I think a legal challange could be predicated on.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

The scientific evidence is there, whether in utero, or after an abortion. That is what I think a legal challange could be predicated on.

But what is the penalty for her destroying tissue cells that he willingly gave away? Could I sue someone for wiping my sneeze off the countertop?

You still have to prove that the embyro has individual human rights afforded the same protection by the law as any other or else the significance of such a case is isolated to what kind of rights should the law protect regarding cells and DNA that you freely gave up with no promise of return or protection

The court made it clear that the key to the decision was the 14th Amendment. Thats what I read anyway. Not sure how the 9th would work in either side's favor.

@ White,
To the layperson, yes. To the court, no. The historical context and legislative history are only factors the court looks at when making its decision. Ultimately, the court may decide that the current state of affairs makes the old rationales null and void. Historically this has happened a lot. Ie, the Rule in Shelley's case, the rule against perpetuities, the rule against some weird thing that doesn't apply anymore because we don't have a monarch...etc.

The previous opinions written by the Supreme Court about an amendment/subject carry a lot of weight as well.

Heck, if only the historical context that the drafters wrote the constitution under were looked at, the 2nd amemdment would only be for the raising of a militia; and since the militia is the National Guard, we wouldn't have the right to bear arms. This would be a strong argument against the 2nd amendment anyway.

Lee is spot on here.

What if you scratched your wife's back? You have killed skin cells. Is this murder?

The SSN is a way here in the states of recognizing a person is afforded certain rights as a tax paying or potential tax paying citizen. So you would need that in order to make a claim of murder or manslaughter.

As far as killing a visitor on holiday. A visitor here is afforded the same life liberty and pursuit yada yada as we are. They are just not citizens so in a country where all men are created equal murder of one born person is just that murder. Only diplomatic immunity will get you out of that pickle.

Insofar as a trial against the mom for murder. Trying to get medical "waste" entered as evidence when it is protected under HIPAA laws is easier said than done. I would think that the contract for an abortion reads that the specimen will be destroyed, no usable waste for DNA testing.

Simply put. When the mom and dad copulate and dad protests about mom having an abortion well under our laws he is SOL. If he wanted to petition the court for a stay, or for the right to adopt the child after birth that may be one thing. I doubt that a stay would be granted under our current laws, but an adoption hearing maybe something completely different. Essentially paying for the child under contract that at the end of 10 months that the child when born will become the property of the adopted parent and the birth mother will cede all rights to the child.

The above happens with surrogate mothers all the time.

I would venture down that path. I mean pay the mom for all her time and expense and carry any and all health related costs associated with the birth of the child then a final balloon payment at the end and bango, one child all yours. With no mother, no family, just ****ed off grandparents who could exercise grandparent rights and make your life a living breathing hell for the next 18 years.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Okay this is getting closer to my original argument.

Say a woman has an abortion, that the father did not want her to have. Why cannot he use the aborted embryo/fetus as evidence? "Look your Honor, this unborn child had just as much of my DNA as it did of hers, I demand Justice,a s it was not HER body she was terminating!" Or something along those lines. The scientific evidence is there, whether in utero, or after an abortion. That is what I think a legal challange could be predicated on.

The great thing about the opinion was that the court refused to specify exactly when the fetus became a life. They gave some guidelines, but there is a lot of blurry area.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I don't think they spelled out in the Constitution that my possible desire to smoke marijuana, snort cocaine and mainline heroin should be denied, and therefore, under the 9th it should clearly be my right!

i agree completely.

Well, I think there is no doubt that such a distinction between the woman's body and the fetus/baby body can be drawn - the line is at the placenta, which is fairly large organ but I'm sure that not many people will have issues if most of it is given to the fetus/baby. I think it would be great if the legal definition can be changed to better reflect the scientific facts.

But then since a woman still has full rights over her body she can still chose the placenta to be detached from her. Unfortunately most of the time that means that the fetus/baby will be dead by any definition as a result of such action.
So I don't think this changes anything from a practical point of view. May be it'll make abortions be performed in a very specific way to ensure that the fetus/baby is not damaged in any way during the process and be given a chance to survive on its own or with the help of some other host or equipment. It seems to me that if this was a medical possibility it would most certainly change things dramatically (as long as the pro-life people are willing to put their money where their mouth is).