"Person-hood" is not the defining factor in abortion

Seen it banded about that if a fetus were to be declared a "person" under the constitution that it would mean the end to abortions except in certain circumstances, while it would be a major blow to the pro-choice campaign I personally do not feel it would be the deciding factor.

How? The first step in accomplishing real abortion rights is to stop arguing about what a fetus "is" - whether it is a fullfledged miniature citizen or an amphibious lump of tissue - and establish what a fetus "does" to a woman.

So let us assume that in some pro-life utopia that SCOTUS have overturned Roe and all "children" from the point of conception are protected under the constitution by federal law, this does not over-rule the use of deadly force in self-defence.

Now we all probably know that deadly force in self defence can be used when one is threatened with death, so I will assume that not even pro-lifers would stand against an abortion in a life threatening situation... however there are other occasions when deadly force in self defence is justified.

Currently states recognize three contexts of when deadly force in self defence is justified;

1. when one is threatened with death
2. when one is threatened with a serious bodily injury (defined as damage or loss of use of an organ or limb for a protracted period of time, such as six weeks)
3. the invasion of one's liberty, such as in kidnaping, rape, or slavery

Deadly force, of course, is justified to stop the fetus from threatening a woman with death. But deadly force is also justified to stop the fetus from imposing the massive number of changes occurring in even a normal pregnancy, if a woman does not consent to those changes. The fetus also profoundly affects a woman's liberty when she is pregnant, so that without consent, pregnancy is similar to kidnapping or enslavement. A pregnant woman, after all, is forced to be with the fetus at all times and be responsible for it, yet she cannot control its actions on her body.

The law already recognizes that non-consensual pregnancy construes a serious violation and a wrongful pregnancy. It can then be argued that when a fetus affects a woman's body without consent, it seriously harms her. The constitutional issue now is the government's response to the fetus's harm.

Pregnancy undergone against one's will is quite a violation, in medical terms, even a normal pregnancy is an extraordinary condition. Hormones may rise to 400 times their base levels. A woman's respiratory system drastically changes, causing a 40 percent increase in cardiac volume and a 15 percent increase in blood pressure. A new organ is grown in a woman's body, the placenta, and her entire circulatory system is rerouted in order to make her blood supply usable for the growing fetus. Given the quantity and quality of the effects of a fetus on a woman's body and liberty, if a woman does not consent, that fetus is massively harming her.

Put another way, imagine what would happen if someone were to be injected with 400 times the base level of a hormone, or a new organ were to be placed in his/her body. Without consent, we would all agree that the person was being seriously injured, and it's a sure bet that the person would be attempting to gain assistance in defending him/herself against such massive, nonconsensual changes to his/her body, and his/her liberty. So, too, with pregnancy.

Now I suspect I will get the usual responses of "consent to sex, is implied consent to pregnancy, based on assumption of risk" but even in legal terms this is not correct, sex is not the same condition as pregnancy, it only creates the risk that pregnancy will occur. The law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk. A person who walks down a dark alley late at night risks being injured by an attacker, for example, but that does not obligate the pedestrian to consent to the injuries of an attack. On the contrary, no one ever loses the right to consent to how others affect one's body and liberty.

If EVERY act of sex concluded with a pregnancy then the "consent to sex" argument would have much more standing as sex would be much m ore than just a risk of pregnancy.

Individual consent in most societies and most legal system is of primary importance. Bearing that in mind, if a woman does not agree to the ways a fetus affects her body and liberty, then, by definition, the fetus is legally harming her. To say that a medically normal pregnancy is a serious bodily injury is already established in the law in contexts other than abortion. It is termed "wrongful pregnancy." When a fetus affects a woman's body and liberty in pregnancy without consent, the changes are so massive, they meet the standards currently set in law for the use of deadly force in selfdefense.

Therefore it is easy to conclude that even IF a fetus is a "person" protected under the constitution a woman has the right to use deadly force in order to rectify the bodily injury forced upon her without her consent.

 

No matter how they cut it, the "pro-lifers"' desire to make abortion illegal results in one thing.....REMOVING the "personhood rights" of the woman.

They love to talk about fetuses, even fertilized eggs as being "persons, who have full human rights." Fine....but notice how rare it is for them to be HONEST and admit that to protect THAT "person"...they would take away the rights of the person within whose body it resides.

Whatever they say....and especially their claim to love of "person" and "human rights"....they cannot deny that if they got what they wanted, it would mean TAKING AWAY the rights of a woman and rendering her an "unperson", if for nine months.


To them?....a pregnant woman is NOT a "person".

 

For the sake of this discussion, the fetus is a person, right?

Well, no woman has the right to slice up an innocent child's body.

 

I would argue that the women did consent to pregnancy by having sex. For example, if somebody is speeding, they are responsible for getting into a car accident. Not everybody who speeds gets into a car accident, but there's still a risk being taken everytime somebody speeds. The amount of risk of being attacked by an attacker after walking down a dark alley at nighttime is small in comparison to the risk of getting pregnant from sex or getting into a car accident from speeding.

- - - Updated - - -

You always accuse me of posting drivel. What you say is very biased.

 

So you believe a woman who becomes pregnant no longer has any rights to control her own body and thus is NOT a person, right?

 

Pregnant women are persons. I never said that they were not. According to you, not wanting to allow women to kill innocent children for convenience reasons makes pregnant women "non-persons"?

 

You claim fetuses are "persons"...and thus "have rights".......yet you think a woman's rights should be taken away from her when she becomes pregnant. Well, according to YOUR STANDARD....a "person" with no rights....isn't a "person".

 

It's not a woman's "right" to kill an innocent child.

 

So you ADMIT...you WOULD take away "rights" from a "person"? Ergo, by your own claims, they stop being a "person".

 

then you did not read the OP or failed to understand it

"Now I suspect I will get the usual responses of "consent to sex, is implied consent to pregnancy, based on assumption of risk" but even in legal terms this is not correct, sex is not the same condition as pregnancy, it only creates the risk that pregnancy will occur. The law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk. A person who walks down a dark alley late at night risks being injured by an attacker, for example, but that does not obligate the pedestrian to consent to the injuries of an attack. On the contrary, no one ever loses the right to consent to how others affect one's body and liberty."

perhaps by highlighting the relevant part you may better understand.

 

There's a very direct cause and effect relationship between speeding and car accidents, and sex and pregnancy, but there isn't a very direct cause and effect relationship between the simple act of walking down an alley and getting attacked.

 

and that has nothing to do with how the law sees it .. or are you having a problem understanding the following - "The law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk"- Do you know what the most dangerous sport is .. it is horse-riding, yet are any of the people injured in pursuit of that sport denied medical care because they consented to take the risk?

Here are some facts for you on the percentage chance of getting pregnant, and being involved in a car crash

Pregnancy - There is about a 15-25% chance of becoming pregnant in each ovulatory cycle:
Car Crash - There is a 30% chance of being involved in a serious automobile accident in your lifetime.

So statistically you are more likely to be involved in a car crash than you are to get pregnant, so tell me Sam which is the greater risk and should we now remove medical treatment for all people involved in car crashes after all they consented to the risk.

 

Isn't it strange that the usual pro-lifers have steered well clear of this thread . .even though they are reading it as can be seen from the "likes" offered to the inept arguments put forward so far.

One has to wonder why that is.

 

Giving medical treatment to people in car accidents doesn't harm innocent humans.

 

and this is totally irrelevant to the law . .you are stating that having sex gives implied consent to pregnancy, it is no different to the implied consent to injury from a car crash or horse riding, both of which you are statistically more likely to have than becoming pregnant therefore the implied consent based on assumption of risk is higher for the car crash or horse riding than it is for pregnancy.

You have also failed to address the law as it stands for use of deadly force .. If I was to inject you with 400 times the base level of hormones and implant a new organ into your body without your consent would you pursue ANY means possible to rectify the damage done to your body or not?

 

If somebody speeds, then they are responsible for the car accidents that happens afterwards.

- - - Updated - - -

Most women don't have abortions to save their own health or lives. They do it for convenience reasons.

 

Are you a robot, because I've seen this canned response from you before. For whatever reasons women have abortions, it is up to 14 times safer than childbirth, and any woman can develop serious complications at any time in any pregnancy. If you read the OP, you would know that pregnancy is not a mere "inconvenience."

 

and yet again WTF has this to do with anything .. it's like banging my head against a brick wall with you .. go away Sam you obviously have no idea or comprehension of the OP.

"The law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk"

Therefore if a woman does not consent to pregnancy she has every right to rectify the damage caused by the fetus .. now not even you can be so stupid as to fail ti understand that.

Irrelevant ... the use of deadly force is justified in three ways under current law;

1. when one is threatened with death
2. when one is threatened with a serious bodily injury (defined as damage or loss of use of an organ or limb for a protracted period of time, such as six weeks)
3. the invasion of one's liberty, such as in kidnapping, rape, or slavery

A fetus cause serious bodily harm to the woman, it is also an invasion of her liberty .. two reasons why she is justified in using deadly force.

 

CONCLUSION
Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that new human life, distinct from the mother, exists from the moment of conception. Nonetheless, unless the Supreme Court reverses its holding in Roe v. Wade, unborn children will not enjoy the right to life under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. States do, however, retain the prerogative to specify by legislative act or constitutional amendment that unborn children are juridical “persons” possessed of fundamental rights for purposes of state law.

A personhood bill or constitutional amendment would be an important state pronouncement regarding when human life begins and a recognition of the unique set of human rights that exist as of that point. Personhood measures can establish a positive set of rights for unborn children without directly challenging the rights of any other class of persons.

However, once a state recognizes unborn children as “persons” who enjoy fundamental rights, the state then faces the decision as to whether the humanity of the unborn warrants specific restrictions on a woman‟s right to privacy that go beyond those permitted by the Supreme Court‟s abortion jurisprudence. If so, the state will invite a confrontation with Roe v. Wade and its progeny.


The promise of the personhood strategy lies in the opportunity it presents for the Court to allow states to take back the abortion issue by filling a gap in state law identified in Roe v. Wade—the definition of “persons” for purposes of state fundamental rights analysis. In this context, where a state recognizes the fundamental rights of the unborn, the United States Supreme Court can and should permit the state to find that the unborn child‟s right to life outweighs the Fourteenth Amendment privacy rights of the mother. ~ Washington and Lee Law School

 

and this is relevant to the OP how exactly, or are you just posting for the sake of it?

Did you even read the OP, which is based on the hypothetical situation that Roe has been overturned, but would not amount to abortion being made illegal based on the deadly force in self defence laws.

Now would you care to actually stick to the topic or are you content to post more irrelevant material?

 

What you're saying is that a woman can kill her own child (use deadly force), just because it's an inconvenience to her (an invasion of her liberty). Parents have parental responsibilities to their children. They can't just kill them because they are an inconvenience to them. And don't give me this "pregnancy can threaten the life or health of a woman" nonsense. The vast majority of women that have abortions would have them regardless. They have abortions for convenience reasons, not for health reasons.

 

Irrelevant crap. It is obvious to all but the most ignorant that personhood initiatives and other similar attempts to re-define fetuses as persons have failed every time attempted. Moreover since you posted this, for whatever reason, it is fair to conclude that you agree with it. The problem is that you were not capable to extrapolate to the next logical conclusion. All your claims that UVVA defined fetuses as persons is a purposeful lie because if that were true this would not be necessary.

There is no mystery about the beginning of life nor is it relevant to the issue of personhood. Now why do yo not get this?

 

Ah again with "Pregnancy is just a mere inconvenience." So insulting to mothers. Have you ever seen a woman give live birth? Watch that and you sit here and continue to refer to pregnancy and childbirth as mere inconveniences. How would you like it if you had to have your vagina cut open down to your anus just to prevent a perineal tear? How would like to have that perineal tear happen? How would you like to endure the year long recovery from pregnancy and childbirth? How would you like it if you started to hemorhage after a C-section and almost die on the operating table from blood clots and then have to take blood thinners for a year and go on a strict diet just to ensure you don't die from blood clots? (This actually happened to my cousin and her baby died right after her emergency C-section).

Pft...I am so sick of pro-birthers insulting mothers like this. It really infuriates me. >=(

 

are you just being bloody thick of the sake of it, where in my OP do I say that it is "just because it's an inconvenience", are you sure you are of the age you say because your comprehension is severely lacking.

It is not just because it it is an invasion of her liberty, it is also the un-consented damage being done to her body, or did you miss that part, and add to that the following;

"The law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk"

what part of that do you not understand .. let me explain it for you - just because the woman consented to sex (the risk) does not mean she consents to the pregnancy (the injury) and as such she has a legal right to use deadly force in self defence .. that is the law.

 

I say that it's an inconvenience because some women are either lazy bums that don't want to work extra hours to support their children, or they are selfish and they just want to party (like Casey Anthony), or they just aren't emotionally mature or capable enough to care for a child, or they just want to spend time with their friends.

- - - Updated - - -

What is she defending herself against? An innocent child, just so she can have more time to party and spend time with her friends?