Really?

Read a good post about this here:

http://redletterbelievers.blogspot.com/2010/01/…

Well… I don't understand what the hell you are arguing. I have not argued that a fetus is a citizen or not. The fetus is, at some point between conception and birth, a human being. The constitution does not say one damn thing about the right to aborting this human being any more than it grants citizens the right to murder non-citizens.

Roe v Wade is “today's law” and the ruling is not at all based on “citizenship”. It states that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the “point at which the fetus becomes 'viable'” and defines viability as the potential “to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid”. The ruling states that viability “is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.” Last I checked, the Constitution does not establish that a viable fetus is a citizen any more than it provides a citizen the right to assault or murder a non-citizen.

You state that “And, I am not arguing “today's law” but the timeless words of our own constitution, and not an amendment to it either. “

Actually the definition you reference is in The 14th Amendment… maybe you should read it.

The constitution, however is CRYSTAL CLEAR. It is NOT “dubious”. It is precise. “Born” here or “naturalized”. That is the constitutional definition of a citizen.
And, I am not arguing “today's law” but the timeless words of our own constitution, and not an amendment to it either. Furthermore, it's easy for you to ignore the extreme challenges of elevating the rights of a POTENTIAL citizen above those of an ACTUAL one. But it is a critical issue that would have very far-reaching consequences.

Let me take the wee baby out of the picture, as that makes religios crazy. Right now, there is no requirement that a mother (or father) give a kidney, or even blood, to save her or his child. Why not? Why can't a parent be forced to subjugate her or his medical decision to her or his child, or to any other citizen for that matter?

Well?

However, I am vehemently pro-choice. How might one reconcile such a thing? Well, let's say for the purpose of argument that an embryo or a fetus is a person — again, I don't really think it is, but let's explore the consequences if it is. Given that pregnancy is one of the more dangerous and expensive medical conditions facing women, given that this little “person” is physically living inside another person, and given that in many cases the interests of one “person” are in direct conflict with the interests of the other — given these things, where do the rights of one person end and the rights of another begin?

If we think not in terms of a fetus/mother, but instead of two definite (already born) people, this answer is very clear. A healthy person is not obligated to donate hir bodily functions (say, a kidney) to save the life of a sick person who will die without this donation. One person's right to swing hir fist ends at the point where it comes in contact (or threatens to come in contact) with another person. Our rights to do as we wish are always mitigated by others' rights to live without harm from our actions, even if these actions are not committed with malice or intent to harm .

Looking at the case of Tebow in particular, the mother's ability to live without harm while remaining the vessel for her son was most certainly greatly compromised. She chose to remain pregnant despite the great danger to her own life. This is totally and completely within her rights under any pro-choice person's view. However, if she had decided on a different path, wouldn't that be simple self-preservation? How could we blame her for this decision? How could we presume to make such a decision for her? (However much we like the Saints….)

My point: people are afforded personal physical autonomy under the law in every single scenario I can think of. Taking away the rights to abortion is the only case in which it is proposed that this right to be physically in control of one's own body is being challenged. And it is being challenged in order to preserve the rights of others who may or may not even be people.

How far back do you go and still say it's a loss? Or no longer a loss? That's the essence of it.

In fact, the best approach to “drawing the line” if a line must be drawn in legitimizing abortion is to go backward. A real-world issue related to this is to ask where the law is reasonable in defining an extra life that establishes a homicide of a developing baby (separately from what may be defined about the mother) if a pregnant woman is subjected to trauma or violent attack and the developing baby dies as a result.

Too many prefer irrationality and ugly politics and poor personal behavior instead.

It's definitely not, at least as early as implantation (not as late as viability). The serious question concerns if it stops being an appendix, “growth,” “cancer,” or “[pause to convey disgust] _thing_” (all of which I've observed) at conception, implantation, or somewhere between these two events.

[Presumably this will not be removed.]

Actually, keelaay, I think you might be misunderstanding the nature of the SCOTUS decision. SCOTUS only ruled that the law cannot place limits on the amount of money corporations can spend on political ads (and other forms of speech that money can buy). SCOTUS did not rule that private businesses cannot turn down any corporate ads.

Not “we,” keelaay. The woman involved is the one who must make that choice, given that, as you suggest, there is no one answer that definitively answers the question of when life begins.

No, actually quite the contrary, PJBFan. Questions that are not answerable or knowable by science are best left for personal religious belief, philosophical bent, or spiritual values to answer. And that is a process that has to take place on the individual and personal level, not on the government, or public, level.

thanks.
dr.e

And a women is of course human. As is a father. Hence the problem and why I believe we by necessity need err on the side of caution. For all human lives and rights involved.

One minute from birth is not a serious argument.

Of course, a fetus is human. That's not the same as when human life begins.

I would suggest erring on the side of a woman being both human, and having a life that has begun.

By the way, the law allows churches, synagoges, temples, etc to teach their beliefs about public policy questions to their members, and the law allows them to do so publicly. The law prohibits them from endorsing or promoting or recommending voting against a particular candidate. Plenty of other non-profit organizations participate in politics.