Legal opposition to Roe V Wade?

[Seraphim]

OK, so I've been thinking about this for some time.

My original thought was that a father of an unborn child could bring legal action to stop an abortion from happening, as it is his child as well as the mother's.

Turns out this has been tried before and was thrown out, as apparently Roe V Wade is predicated on the woman being free to do "with her own body" as she sees fit.

So then I thought, can we not then bring science to bear on the subject, and via DNA testing of the embryo/fetus clearly show that indeed the life now in the womb is genetically seperate from that of the mother, thereby making it not "her own body", and thus nullifying her "right" to do with it as she pleases?

[smokelaw1]

Interesting thought. However, IF the fact that the fetus is the "woman's body" is a settled "fact" under the law (yes, "fact is in quotes because it is a "fact" in the legal sense, I'm not saying it is well settled either morally or in the public view), then I don't see what DNA evidence saying it is genetically separate has to do with it.

(unrelated thoughts about father's rights deleted)

Don't cancer cells (no, I am not equating the miracle of potential life to cancer) have different DNA than the person it is growing in?

[gratewhitehuntr]

not until people can see the fetus as more than a tapeworm with the potential to become a person


EDIT
better answer

what exactly do you mean by separate from her body?
it is (should be) obvious that the fetus isn't her body

what do we do about the fetus imposing itself on her L,L,APOH ?
I don't know.

[singlewedge]

Problem being that states do not recognize a fetus as a life until it has a social security number. At that point it is a citizen.

Even if you could DNA type the fetus it would have to be developed beyond the 3rd trimester if I understand what I have read.

The odd thing is that if, knowing the above about fetal rights, you kill the mother, ie murder, or cause her to die and the fetus dies as a result that is a double homicide. Which has confused me.

I will not state my position here as it is a personal one so all you will get from me is devil's advocate.

Basically anything growing in a women is her's. Until you murder her or cause her to die and it dies, then it automatically becomes a person.

On the flip side at one time children were considered property under the law so that if you injured a child you would have to pay the family in recompense for the loss of that child's earning potential. Think farm related stuff here. Your son is away at the market trying to sell some beef or milk and you run him over with a cart and his leg is crushed. Well he is about as much use to the farmer/father as he would be in a butt kicking contest. The driver would have to pay the farmer to make up for the loss of the farm hand.

Have we evolved?

[jockeys]

as an explanatory aside, I believe it's because the fetus relies on the mother's body. that is, if you were to remove the fetus without harming it, it would still die (unless it was in a very late stage of development).

if we have synthetic wombs someday maybe it won't be an issue, but right now an early stage fetus cannot be removed from the mother without resulting in its death, whether it's immediate or later on

[Seraphim]

Interesting thought. However, IF the fact that the fetus is the "woman's body" is a settled "fact" under the law (yes, "fact is in quotes because it is a "fact" in the legal sense, I'm not saying it is well settled either morally or in the public view), then I don't see what DNA evidence saying it is genetically separate has to do with it.

(unrelated thoughts about father's rights deleted)

Don't cancer cells (no, I am not equating the miracle of potential life to cancer) have different DNA than the person it is growing in?

What I'm getting at is a way to overturn that legal *ahem* "fact". That is what legal arguments are all about, and why cases are brought before the Supreme Court.

DNA testing is legally acceptable as a means to detrmine paternity in a child support legal situation. Could that not show some legal precident for making a claim such as this?



From what I understand about cancer cells is that they are the person's own cells that for some reason continue to multiply beyond what they are designed to, and thus cause tumors, etc. As far as I know, they are made up of the person's own DNA?

[Leighton]

Jurisprudence has seen fit to give women a whole lot of rights in the family law area this past century. Women get child support, alimony, right to abortions....etc etc. Father's seem to be on the short end of the stick when it comes to recent laws. Of course, in the old days, the father would get sole custody of the children and the divorced wife would be thrown to the curb or worse.

I'm going to go with smoke on the legal remedies. Sounds about right and he actually took Con law.

[Leighton]

What I'm getting at is a way to overturn that legal *ahem* "fact". That is what legal arguments are all about, and why cases are brought before the Supreme Court.

DNA testing is legally acceptable as a means to detrmine paternity in a child support legal situation. Could that not show some legal precident for making a claim such as this?



From what I understand about cancer cells is that they are the person's own cells that for some reason continue to multiply beyond what they are designed to, and thus cause tumors, etc. As far as I know, they are made up of the person's own DNA?

No. Supreme Court trumps all. Unless they reverse their own decision (unlikely). Whatever is in that opinion is the law.

edit: there is one other way. Amend the Constitution. GL with that though.

[jockeys]

From what I understand about cancer cells is that they are the person's own cells that for some reason continue to multiply beyond what they are designed to, and thus cause tumors, etc. As far as I know, they are made up of the person's own DNA?

they are the person's own cells, made from their dna, but mutated.

a child is also made from a person's dna, but mutated. (primarily by combining with someone else's dna, but random mutation also plays a small role)

[smokelaw1]

What I'm getting at is a way to overturn that legal *ahem* "fact". That is what legal arguments are all about, and why cases are brought before the Supreme Court.

DNA testing is legally acceptable as a means to detrmine paternity in a child support legal situation. Could that not show some legal precident for making a claim such as this?



From what I understand about cancer cells is that they are the person's own cells that for some reason continue to multiply beyond what they are designed to, and thus cause tumors, etc. As far as I know, they are made up of the person's own DNA?

I think I inderstnad your point, and I'm saying that even if the fetus IS separate DNA formed through whatever process begins at whatever stage that will allow it to eventually become human, it is still recognized as THE WOMAN'S BODY. Now, COULD a different SCOTUS say that our right to privacy no longer extends to tissue made up of different DNA inside our bodies? Sure, and it would be a reasonable argument. Do I see it working in the current judicial-political landscape? Not likely. At least not for the next 4 years. The woman's body is still affected by the decision, even if the growing fetus is not her body. The argument being about the woman changes the terms, a bit, granted, but that is where the right is founded, if I understand it correctly (big IF).

DNA testing is already accepted as a scientific avenue, so no precedent is neccesary. What is neccesary for your argument to change anything legally, is to be able to show something that the court hasn't considered before, such that it would change its position on what has been held to be a fundamental right (privacy in one's body, and by extension, of course, what IS one's body). On top of that, the fetus would have to be more than simply "not her body" but an actual human with rights. Otherwise, the fact that she wants to do something to the tissues surrounding that "not her body" element would STILL hold privacy rights.

As for cancer, you VERY well may be right, I simply lack the knowledge to say.

EDIT: As fascinating and enjoyable as these conversations are, I need to put a big old disclaimer on my posts today. I'm going on and off very busy, and have been hitting "submit" before I read over things to make sure they make sense. For today, please excuse any dumber than usual posts.