Opening The ‘Personhood’ Can Of Worms
The latest tactic in the anti-abortion arsenal is advocating passage of so-called personhood measures, and it is likely that Mississippi will do so when it elects a new governor next Tuesday.
The Mississippi measure defines a person as “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” While this sounds pretty straightforward, legal observers say it is anything but and that states might regret promulgating such measures because of all the problems they will cause:
* Chief among them is that it’s impossible to pinpoint the precise moment of fertilization.
* It is unclear whether the measures will have the force of law or whether laws would have to be passed in order to enforce them.
* What would the penalties be for not hewing to the measure and any attendant laws?
* What effect would such measures have on Roe v. Wade, which secured a woman’s right to have an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy?
As long as Roe remains the law of the land, the last question is easy to answer because the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause states that when state and federal laws conflict, federal law prevails.
But that, in turn, creates other problems.
This is because in-vitro fertilization (IVF) often involves discarding unused, fertilized embyros, and this is not constitutionally protected. Nor are intrauterine devices (IUDs), which can prevent the implantation of fertilized embryos. Would IUDs then be banned if personhood measures became law?
And if personhood measures do not have the force of law, what’s the point? Grandstanding?
James Bopp, general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, warns that pro-lifers should be careful what they wish for because forcing the personhood issue all the way to the Supreme Court, which surely is a motive for some advocates, could actually result in stronger protections for abortion.
In one scenario, Bopp envisions pro-lifers having to defend a law banning popular IVF procedures and commonly used forms of birth control. He suggests that they would fail.
24 Responses to “Opening The ‘Personhood’ Can Of Worms”
Just more fuel for the anti-science fire. Give me a Carl Sagan on this subject any day. Duh.
The coming referendum in Mississippi, and other news stories & interviews I’ve read & heard over the last few days, have made me realize that it is time we gave power back to the states and the citizens of those states.
When it comes to abortion (as just one example), we’ve tried to force a type of morality across the entirety of the country. This is wrong-headed and therefore doomed to failure.
There are plenty of states that are trying their hardest to stop abortions. There are plenty of states that are trying their hardest to preserve the rights of women. Let’s let them, and let each state bear the responsibility for the consequences.
For a few decades now, we’ve been trying to be the United States of Generica. In a nation of 375 million, that’s simply not practical. In no way can we ever have agreement on issues like this, so the government is always trying to force one set of beliefs or another on the populace. It’s no wonder we are fractured, divisive, and angry.
We need to go back to being disparate states with disparate cultures. Let the Feds control the clear-cut issues under their power according to the Constitution, and the truly big-picture issues like national defense, air & water quality, trade policy, etc., and let the states and their voters have the culture stuff.
In this high-mobility age, people can move from state to state. Move to one that suits you. Frankly, I hope for a gigantic exodus of young people from Mississippi because of this new law (if it passes). But let the people of that state make that determination.
Well, better late than never (which is unpatriotic), when it comes to properly viewing and respecting federalism, leaving as little as can be left as possible to the federal government, most done by the states.
As for “personhood,” Shaun Mullen is incorrect if he claims this is any kind of new tactic; citizenship for unborn Americans was legally or administratively sought during the (W.) Bush years.
I am resolutely in favor of allowing a woman to decide what she does with her body, not a state legislature, but I also agree that this issue should be decided on a state-by-state basis.
JSpencer I don’t see this as anti-science. The exact moment when “personhood” begins is an ethical and philosophical question that can never be answered with 100% certainty. That’s a major reason I am pro-choice.
Personhood is basically the abortion morality question by a different description. It is my belief that if you have prevented a human life started, from growing and being born, you have killed a human being. You’re ability to live with doing so is the moral dilemma you cannot escape. I cannot justify abortion in my own mind. Others may. Generally I cannot decide what is moral for another person, no more than I can morally decide their religion for them. It is a choice we make, and, we must live with our choices until we ourselves die. The legal question has been decided already and may come up again, but disguising the issue under Personhood is, in my opinion, dishonest. It is dishonest to trick people into doing what they do not believe in. Would I dishonestly trick someone into not having an abortion? Maybe, but we cannot have screwy indirect laws like these deciding our lives or the whole world goes to hell in a hand basket.
It would probably make more sense for legal personhood to begin at viability; there would certainly be some contention as to when that is (viabile with artificial life supports or not, for instance) and it’s a moving target as medical technology advances, but at least it doesn’t involve unknowable situations.
Politically there are many advantages to that approach vs the personhood from conception one too- avoiding all of the pitfalls described by Shaun and also embracing what I believe the polling data shows most Americans support.
Allen, I don’t see this as dishonest, in fact just the opposite. Deciding on legality of abortion definitively hinges on the concept of legal personhood; if an unborn human being is legally defined as a person, then that person has to be granted right to life and the Constitutional protection of it.
It’s actually far more honest to put this concept to a vote, and allow and invite debate on the topic, IMO.
Abortion exists as an option. For those that don’t want one, don’t get one. I can hardly think of a more personal decision, or one that has more impact on the rest of your life, thanks this one. Anyone who thinks its their business to butt in and make this choice for someone else is a hugely self righteous asshole in my opinion. Conservatives talk of their myriad fears of big govt coming in to take away their personal freedoms and force things on them, yet seem to support illegalizing abortion. That seems to me the epitome of govt intrusion into our lives and deciding an outcome that will be with us forever.
And in case your wondering, I’m one of those who is against abortion, and has simply made the decision to not have any. I don’t need the govt in my life on this particular issue thank you very freekin much.
CStanley-
Well if you want to look at it that way, then it would seem that a person is not a person without having, or, having had, a personality. The unborn has no personality. There have been hundreds of millions of abortions since Roe. How many would have become human beings? Certainly hundreds of millions! I cannot erase that fact in my head, and, I feel a little guilty to be a human being each time I remember it. So like I said, we deal with our own sense of morality. Some may have a conscience, some may not. It’s just the way it is.
See, I can only dance around the issue. Just like everybody else, I cannot pin it down. Best I can do is speak for myself.
Though I would like to complain: With all the effort going into pro-life for the unborn based on the premise that human life is sacred, I would like to point out that there are massive numbers of people around the world, who’s lives are in immediate and dire risk of starving to death, that could use some of that effort. A particularly important need is at this very moment occurring on the Kenya/Somali border. If you cannot stop an abortion today, then please send some money to UNICEF and stop a child from starving to death.
slamfu, clearly you would vote against personhood if given the opportunity then. Opposing abortion personally but rejecting any basis for legislating against it is consistent with a belief that legal personhood doesn’t exist before birth.
Personally I don’t get that, because even if one throws out all moral convictions when parsing the question and looks at the science, it would be impossible to distinguish between a viable fetus and a newborn of the same gestational age. If the being is biologically a human being and could exist outside the woman’s womb, I can’t imagine how one could make a legal argument saying that anyone has the right to kill that human being.
Maybe you are only talking about previability though, I can’t tell from your comment (and yes, I’m aware that most abortions do take place before viability; I’m just trying to figure out what people mean when they say that abortion is no one else’s business but they don’t mention whether they feel it’s their business after the fetus reaches a certain stage or not.)
Allen, I’m not sure I understand your ‘personality’ comment. What I was referring to is the legal idea of personhood as understood in Constitutional law. The reason that our SCOTUS justices didn’t or wouldn’t or won’t recognize right to life of the fetus is because right to life is understood to be attached to those already born, not in utero. That’s the point of the legislation in question, to let the legislatures decide if that’s the correct application of ‘right to life’ or not.
Also @ Allen- re your comment about giving to charities that support children in need…I totally agree though it’s of course not mutually exclusive to do that and to also focus on the abortion issue. I’d also add that with regard to abortion, there are a number of ways to ‘give’ that I think anyone regardless of their political or moral beliefs about abortion could and should support…promoting adoption, supporting charities that help support women with difficult pregnancies, etc.
I have always believed that the central issue in abortion is the issue of when someone becomes a person. This issue tends to be systematically ignored in our partisan debates because it isn’t black and white enough to support a “we are good and the other side is evil” kind of position.
At one end of the spectrum of abortion and human gestation you have the issue of whether you can take a baby who is minutes from birth and yank it out and kill it. At the other end, you are trying to equate a single celled organism with human life. Both issues are, IMO, awfully hard to maintain. Roe vs. Wade itself explicitly considers that the laws regarding abortion change as the fetus develops.
Roe vs. Wade itself explicitly considers that the laws regarding abortion change as the fetus develops.
Well, that’s what was attempted but it did so rather unsatisfactorily and did it through the judicial rather than legislative means…so that’s the rationale for putting up legislation defining the personhood.
I have a friend in MS who has been screaming about this for weeks. The gray areas are huge and there is a lot of doublespeak on what would/would not be allowed under the law regarding IVF, ectopic pregnancy, birth control, etc. Supporters say the law won’t ban IVF or the pill or force doctors to let a woman get dangerously close to dying before they choose to end an ectopic pregnancy, but reading personhood literature makes it very clear what they hope this change will do regarding those issues, and it’s all of that and more.
Parents Against 26 has a lot of good info on the law and it’s possible ramifications. http://parentsagainstms26.com/
One thing I have seen is proponents say that the details will be ironed out after the change passes. Um, excuse me, you want to pass a deliberately vague and potentially far-reaching change to the MS constitution, then rely on the government for clarification of what it actually means? Are they nuts?
CStanely-
What you are telling me, is that I should decide for another person what their moral limits are. In fact, as a pro-life advocate, you are further saying that if I do not do so, I am immoral according to what you believe. Possibly, but I have not reconciled this yet.
Until I do, I will not be dictated by your belief, no more than someone else will be dictated by mine. If you make laws forcing women to carry children to term when they don’t want those children, then you also have to make laws taking those children away from the mothers that don’t want them. Then more laws that care for these children until adulthood.
There will always be some people that do not want children for various reasons. What would you have them do, not have sex?
Allen, I simply feel that having children or not having children is a choice we have a great deal of control over, yet not complete control. As a matter of biology, sometimes conception will occur despite any efforts to prevent it, if abstinence from sex isn’t chosen. Therefore, if someone is adamant that their circumstances would not allow them to live through a pregnancy (with the options then of rearing a child or choosing adoption), then yes, that person should avoid having sexual intercourse. If a person hopes to avoid a pregnancy but could find a way to live with the consequence of pregnancy should it occur despite the use of birth control, then such a person has the option of having ‘protected’ sex and taking their chances. What I don’t believe is a moral option is for such a person to have the choice of ending the life of the nascent human being that resulted from their sexual activity. As to legality, I’m conflicted because I realize we live in a pluralistic and secular society.
And yet, despite understanding this and acknowledging your point about legislating morality, I have to point out that all laws are a form of legislated morality. The question really is whether that morality is strictly related to a religious belief (say in this case, ensoulment or whether a pregnancy is an act of God); I maintain that this is not the case, and really there are loads of non-religious ethically based rationales for considering an unborn human being to be an actual human being with right to life.
I will also note that the views above do not go as far as my personal beliefs do and the way that informs my own actions because I don’t believe that artificial birth control is morally acceptable (for me) and yet I do feel that’s a religiously informed decision which I would not seek to impose on others.
At any point? It seems to me at some point the child could live if given birth to and to still abort after the time when one could give birth and the child survive, which some do advocate and want as an option, is the equivalent to Neonaticide. Now we don’t allow the mother of a child decide to end that child’s life after it’s born but 12 hrs earlier she can and anyone who wants to deny that ability is “a hugely self righteous asshole”? Now sure I have used an example at the extreme far end to make a point but it is a valid example of why we do have laws limiting abortions and why at some point it’s no longer just the mothers business.
CStanley-
I think it does more damage to Christianity to force those not of the faith to obey the dictates of the faith. A Taoist may believe that abortion is nothing, so what right have you? It is even a sin to bring him to truth by the sword.
Christ can force anyone to believe but Christ did not ever force souls and does not force souls now. Free Will is God’s Law. You would think some Christians would have learned this by now. We tell people the truth. We do not force the truth upon them, for they are rebellious and will not believe it. Plant your seed. Sow your faith. You cannot force a plant to grow, you must have faith in it. Nor can you know what harvest it will bring, but I advise following the path of peace. It is all in God’s hands.
Maybe you can explain why even though the eagle is no longer an endangered species, its eggs are still federally protected while they’re still in the mother eagle; once they are laid; through the 35-day incubation period and beyond through hatching. In fact, even the nonliving eagle egg shell is protected by the federal law. We’re talking a $100,000 fine! Shouldn’t a human baby have at least the same protection under the law?
It is simply bringing the constitution in line with what science already recognizes: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic
“The only times we even question whether human beings are persons (or “truly” human) are during exploitation and injustice. During the Holocaust, in support of slavery, and to spread eugenics, for example, we have questioned whether the people exploited or abused are really, truly human. To me, that’s powerful.” Ana Banderas http://liveaction.org/blog/is-it-a-person/
AIN’T I A WOMAN? This is what Sojourner Truth asked when she gave her famous speech about the rights of black women.
WELL, AIN’T I A PERSON?
Ryan Bomberger answers this question in this beautiful music video written by a man who was conceived by an act of rape:
http://www.theradiancefoundation.org/portfolio-item/unwanted-a-story-about-choice/
How fortunate his mother recognized his “personhood”!
So, Allen, what you’re telling me is that you feel we have to respect a radical fundamentalist Muslim who believes in ‘honor killing’ his daughter because she engaged in sexual intercourse before marriage, or some practitioner of a primitive religion that believes in human sacrifice (just a fictitious scenario, I don’t know that there even are any such religions today.) But according to your logic, if a person doesn’t believe according to his religious faith that killing certain human beings is morally wrong, then our laws shouldn’t prohibit them from carrying out such an act? What malarkey. And the only difference between this and abortion is whether or not the human being exists before birth- which is why that’s the central question which deserves to be answered, and then handled accordingly by our society.
CStanley-
You are getting really off track from abortion and personhood. You know very well that in the United States you must respect everybody’s religion according to the laws of the land, just as all religions must also obey the laws of the land. Honor killing is against the law and has absolutely no bearing on abortion.