From the piece:

"The structure of the argument is simple: The Fourteenth Amendment’s use of the word “person” guarantees due process and equal protection to all members of the human species. The preborn are members of the human species from the moment of fertilization. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment protects the preborn. If one concedes the minor premise (that preborn humans are members of the human species), all that must be demonstrated is that the term “person,” in its original public meaning at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption, applied to all members of the human species."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/05/30/harvard-law-journal-concludes-unborn-babies-have-constitutional-rights-n2333231

"If one concedes the minor premise (that preborn humans are members of the human species"

Seems like a major premise to me.

eternal1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "If one concedes the minor premise (that preborn
> humans are members of the human species"
>
> Seems like a major premise to me.

Indeed.
And not just that -- the previously stated premise ("The Fourteenth Amendment’s use of the word “person” guarantees due process and equal protection to all members of the human species")
is dishonest right out of the gate.

The use of the word "person" guarantees those rights to any person. To re-define that as "all members of the human species" is itself fallacious. After all, the founders didn't consider blacks a "person." Nor women (at least not entirely). Clearly "person" is open to definition and discussion.

So is a blastocyte (a bunch of undifferentiated cells days after conception) a "person?"

Is a zygote a "person?"
Is a fetus without a functioning heart/brain a "person?"
When does it become a "person?"

Those are the actual questions that we're wrestling with.
This article dismisses them all with a hand-waving redefinition of the word.
That's rather silly.

Hie,

I agree with you on the substance but think it important to note that the intentions of the Founders are irrelevant when analyzing the "original intent" of the people who formulated and enacted the 14th Amendment. What matters is the thinking of those people in post-bellum America.

On our agreement, see below (if you want, of course).

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hie,
>
> I agree with you on the substance but think it
> important to note that the intentions of the
> Founders are irrelevant when analyzing the
> "original intent" of the people who formulated and
> enacted the 14th Amendment. What matters is the
> thinking of those people in post-bellum America.

Oh, I agree.
I only used that to point out that what a "person" is isn't inherent in the constitution at all, as the article argues...that it has been (and still is being) argued about.

> On our agreement, see below (if you want, of
> course).

I want to. Is there another post from you below? I couldn't find it!
edit: never mind, you must have been posting it while I was replying :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2017 06:17PM by ificouldhietokolob.

How nice for them.

But it's irrelevant to recovery from Mormonism.

If abortion is murder, does that mean a miscarriage is manslaughter?

An acorn has the potential to become a tree but it is not yet an oak.

Yours is a social position and moral argument and not a scientific one.

The current compromise allowing abortion on demand up until the third trimester satisfies both the moral and scientific questions on the issue. There are also other reasons to allow termination of a pregnancy in the third trimester.


Abortion is a medical issue and should be left to doctors and patients.



http://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/abortion-procedures/



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2017 01:15PM by anybody.

'Abortion is a medical issue and should be left to doctors and patients.' This is it exactly, Anybody. Why do people think they should have a right to decide what a woman can do with her own reproductive system?

Makes me fearful for my daughters and other young people, that this stupid religious dogma will be forced on them. And that is what the 'right to lifer's' are all about, forcing religious dogma at a political level.

It has been shown over and over that education and good access to birth control reduces abortions and unwanted pregnancies. THIS is what should be focused on.

Let's be a little more honest with the headline and source. A Harvard law student published his personal opinion about the issue in a Harvard sponsored law journal.

This is not the opinion or conclusion of Harvard University.
This is not the opinion or conclusion of the Harvard University law school.
This is not the opinion or conclusion of the Harvard Law Journal.
It is apparently the opinion and conclusion of one Harvard law student who wrote the article. And he's certainly entitled to his own opinion.

Yeah, but why not overturn 50 years of hard-won American jurisprudence based on some kid's academic idea?

He's a Harvard kid!

Seems as reasonable as electing an amoral reality tv host to be our head of state.

OT

Ignoring for a moment the slippery slope fallacy it think it is important to accept small distinctions when it comes to applying the law. For example, there was a recent thread about parents not seeking appropriate medical care for their child. The parent's excuse was presumably religion. In this case the right of the parent to practice their religion does not override the child's right to live a healthy life (IMHO).

It seems to me that this discussion is one of those areas where each party has a right and it is up to society to determine who's right has precedence. For all of the contrived complexity of this issue I think at least two things should be off the table. First, it seems unwise to outlaw abortion. Second, it seems unwise to allow ad hoc abortion.

we try to make the world black and white.......

it's all shades of grey.....

Let's start by evaluating the sources. "Townhall.com" is not a well-known site, so we can't infer credibility from it. The journal to which it refers is in fact not Harvard Law Journal but rather the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (HJLPP). So Townhall.com didn't even get the name right.

As for the HHJLPP itself, it is not a prestigious publication. Virtually all law schools have law reviews and other journals that are student-led and student-edited. The standards for such fora vary greatly. The prestigious Harvard periodical is in fact the Harvard Law Review, not HJLPP. HJLPP is just a place where students and junior faculty at other universities try to put stuff to bolster their resumes. So we are talking about second-rate work.

What about the substance of the argument? The author's discussion of the "common" understanding of the word "person" is interesting, but it is not relevant to the intention of the people who wrote and adopted the 14th Amendment. If he wants us to reinterpret the amendment in that light, he would need to prove that that that "common" meaning is what Congress, the president, and the leaders of 2/3 of the state legislators had in mind as the definition of a "person" when drafting and enacting the 14th Amendment. The author of the article comes nowhere near doing that. The purpose of the amendment is perfectly clear; it was widely debated and recorded. Its motivation was to ensure slavery was over and (naively optimistically) that racial discrimination would not occur. That is why the 14th, along with the 13th and 15th, are known as the Reconstruction Amendments. They were never aimed at abortion: they were aimed at slavery.

But most damningly, the article itself admits that it has no foundation. Literally the third sentence begins "Assuming that. . . Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey were wrongly decided. . ." In other words, the author wants the reader to accept his conclusion before perusing his argument. Only if the reader agrees to that precondition is it reasonable to ask whether Article 14 could conceivably include "preborn" people. The reason the modern Supreme Court has never addressed the abortion question in the context of the 14th Amendment is because there is nothing in the record that supports such an interpretation.

This article is not significant. It is tautological and tendentious. The author is writing for people who already agree with him, and they are the only ones who will take it seriously because it doesn't add anything of substance to the debate. The writer asks you to agree with him before listening to him.

Ratification requires 3/4 of the state legislatures, not 2/3 of the state legislators.

Other errors likely.

It doesn't mean the institution agrees with the premise or conclusions.

In response to this issue, if you haven't read it, TMSH, I highly suggest getting started on Life's Work: A Moral Argument for Choice by Dr. Willie Parker. He's a devout Christian doctor that was initially resistant to providing abortions to women but understands the reasons behind why he must do what he has to do.

Just as not all atheists are pro-choice, not all Christians are pro-birth.

and some church wanted to stop men from taking Viagra they'd get shut down real quick...

Behind all of the religion is support for a traditional male dominated patriarchal society that views women and girls as property of the family to be dealt with at the father's pleasure.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2017 09:34AM by anybody.

If fetuses wish to have input into the political process they should pay taxes like the rest of us. Oh... and serve on juries.

HH =)

TMSH,

Let's get down to the core of what this means and ultimately what free choice can entail.

Will you answer these questions honestly:


Say your wife was just impregnated by you. So, if at fertilization you believe those two cells ARE a person with rights, it creates some situations that we should consider.

If there were a health issue, and you had to pick between the two-cell legal person or your wife (two "persons" which are both equal legality), which one would you favor?

If you had to decide, would you decide that your wife is only to be kept alive as vessel until the child is harvested from her or would you decide the wife's life is more important than the embryo she is carrying?

If you had to save one, which would it be? If you answer by saying this is not likely or it would depend on the situation, you might be able to see what CHOICE means.

If you value the embryo over your wife, then so state. This means that you prioritize your genes and view women as vessels. Now, if YOU were the women and knew people view your role primarily as a vessel, maybe that can help you see what CHOICE means.

If a woman has cancer and needs treatment, she may need to choose treatment or abortion. CHOICE means she can weigh the situation and not have the courts argue that her Carnegie stage 21 "person" is equal to her legally.

But it gets more complicated. If you were impregnated and didn't feel that was right for YOUR life, should you be forced to forfeit your life plans? Why would you expect a woman to do this unless you are willing to give up your life's plans for any other legal person?

Abortion is not something women are hoping to face. Life is complicated.

Could a woman who has a miscarriage be legally liable for the life of the 2-celled legal person who died? Can't you just see a new role for lawyers working on behalf of these "people" who had equal rights?

I think that the real drive behind articles like this is for men to control women by trying to make it a law that their genes (any successful sperm cell) have equal constitutional rights as a full grown woman. Remember, these are typically the same groups who prevent free access to birth control and sex education. Women who write articles like this remind me of Mormon woman who insist they equal in the church.

It's bad enough that religions want to make rules about women's reproductive organs. Now you and others who agree with this article want the government in them too. Funny how the government is evil except when it can be used to get into people's bedrooms.


TMSH. Please think this through. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

This conversation would be more relevant if you'd veer a bit more into the real world.

I've never met anyone who would suggest that a life-threatening pregnancy should favor the life of the child over the mother. I'm sure there are some who feel that way, but do you think there are millions who do? Fortunately it hardly ever happens except when a pro abortion ideologue needs a painful example to justify killing about a million children a year.

Nearly half of all abortions happen as a result of a couple willingly engaging in sexual relations without using birth control. And you're going to tell me that's perfectly okay, and something we should march in the streets to proclaim as an essential right of being a US citizen?

I just don't see it. The crowd that mindlessly utters, "Safe, legal, and rare" consistently shows they have no real concern to make it rare. Sugar coat it all you want, but these are actual human lives that are being extinguished, and it's a tragedy of unimaginable proportions.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion that "the real drive behind articles like this is for men to control women," but you are no mind reader. It's an easy way to dismiss a contrary argument that you simply cannot engage head on. Is abortion a moral or ethical choice? Your reply is meaningless if you stick to your mind reader schtick that it's all a machiavellian plot to control women. Every pro life person I've met is actually pro life. I hate what it does to a woman's soul to kill the vulnerable life within her, and I hate that the unexplored potential that could have been will never be.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2017 02:45PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

This is where your argument collapses under its own weight.

You write, "I've never met anyone who would suggest that a life-threatening pregnancy should favor the life of the child over the mother."

If a zygote or fetus is alive, then it is by definition as sacrosanct as the mother's life. The decision to prioritize the mother's life is an intentional decision to kill another human being. You have raised the fetus's status to that of a human being and are now authorizing its intentional destruction.

You cannot realistically start an argument by saying fetal life is sacrosanct and then say "but it isn't quite as sacrosanct as others' lives." Either all human life is equally important or it is not.

Exactly. That was the point of the article: Legal person status at conception. What a can of worms.

OK, so you are pro choice, depending on the criteria you define. Welcome to the pro-choice world.


So are you willing to be an advocate of free accessible birth control as opposed to supporting religions who want to make it harder to obtain? We could prevent most abortions according to your reasoning.


If you had to hand over your life and body because you were impulsive once or your birth control failed, is the future life of the fetus is more important than yours now? Or does that only apply to women?

I only wish that the people who are so worried about embryos were as concerned about the children already here. (Then there is the whole issue of overpopulation but that's a whole different conversation.)

I do hope you have a house full of unwanted children that you have adopted.

If women were the ones who could zip up their pants and walk away instead of men, views may be a bit different.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:

> I just don't see it. The crowd that mindlessly
> utters, "Safe, legal, and rare" consistently shows
> they have no real concern to make it rare. Sugar
> coat it all you want, but these are actual human
> lives that are being extinguished, and it's a
> tragedy of unimaginable proportions.

We keep it rare by teaching people, especially teenagers, to use safer sex practices and birth control. Unfortunately the same people who have a problem with abortion have a problem with accepting the reality that comprehensive sex education is what drives down abortion rates, not religious dogma. I don't want to see abortions more difficult to obtain than they already are because I understand the REAL WORLD consequences of this. See what happened in Texas recently with all the women clinics were shut down. When abortions are illegalized or or nearly impossible to obtain, women will use coat hangers, knitting needles, ingest toxic amounts of various substances, or simply throw themselves down the stairs or have their partner beat them to induce miscarriage. This can cause permanent injury not only to the woman, but if the zygote or fetus survives, then if the pregnancy continues to birth, the baby could have some severe damage as well.

When you illegalize abortion, you don't stop it, you make it incredibly dangerous and punish poor women. The well off have always had the option to fly to Mexico or other places to obtain their abortions and they will always have an easy time of it. It's not easy for the rest of us to come up with +1000, combined with the travel time, taking time off work, then the ridiculous, hotel costs, waiting period that adds to losing even more money only to have to listen to ridiculous nonsense "advice" that abortion providers are required by law to dispense even though it's utter crap.

So instead of railing against abortion and trying to use that atheists agree with you as some sort of validation, why not start promoting comprehensive sexual education instead, something that is proven to be actually effective in reducing abortions?
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/07/what-abortion-decline-reveals/
http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/12/pro-life-doesnt-reduce-abortions/

I don't dispute that some *measure* of life is there when a sperm meets an egg, but I definitely disagree that it's a full human life with all the rights of one and there's a whole bunch of doctors, sexual health educators, philosophers, biologists, some that happen to be Christian, etc... that agree.

I'm sure it's also easy to say "Well, don't have sex then!" Try telling that to the partners of thousands of hetero women that they're not allowed to have sex anymore because it might end up in an abortion. That'll work, I'm sure.

From the anti-abortion perspective (which I was at one time), the question of when life begins is at the very heart of the abortion issue. It is also at the heart of Roe vs. Wade and why abortions are not covered legally (for the most part) during the third trimester. What the SCOTUS has ruled in the past is that a fetus can be considered a human life if it can live and breathe outside of its mother's womb. With medical technology, that timeframe will get earlier.

The problem for the anti-abortion crowd is that this argument is just a smokescreen. As the current pro-choicer that I am, I am in complete agreement with those commenters who argue that the argument over abortion has a lot more to do with how women are to be treated in U.S. society than anything about the fetus. I note that, for the most part, anti-abortionists are less likely to support government programs for mothers and their babies than most of their pro-choice counterparts are. They also tend to be a great deal more religious than their pro-choice counterparts and to prefer a subservient role for women as wives and mothers over workers and rulers.

The problem for pro-choice people (like myself today) is that these anti-abortionists have been gaining ground both politically and in the courts. Given the current POTUS' stand on the abortion issue and the kind of Justices he's said he'd like to see on the SCOTUS, it may not be long before we see Roe vs. Wade reversed--and that will be a very sad day, indeed!

With regard to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, it has talked out of both sides of its mouth on the abortion issue. On the one hand, it publicly condemns the practice, making it an an ally of both the Roman Catholic church and fundamentalist Christians. On the other hand, from stories I've heard (I never was a Mormon), the LDS group has permitted some of its female members to have abortions as long as their bishops and husbands approve. This second stance is wholeheartedly different from the Roman Catholic church (my former religion) and helps to make the LDS church untrustworthy in Roman Catholic and fundamentalist Protestant circles.

blindguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From the anti-abortion perspective (which I was at
> one time), the question of when life begins is at
> the very heart of the abortion issue.

The science is settled on this part of the discussion, so most pro abortion arguments choose not to engage this portion of it.

Life begins at conception. At the moment of conception the zygote has its own unique DNA signature and is alive. There is no branch of science that would observe a cell dividing and reproducing yet claim it is not alive. There's no contrary argument to be made. The discussion moves from "Is it alive?" to "Is it ethical or moral to kill it?"

This is where we can engage personhood, viability, and the ethics of willfully killing a life form that if simply left alone will almost always grow into a human being worthy of every legal and moral protection we would willingly afford any other human.

The pro abortion position needs to argue that there is some waiver that should be embraced due to timing and location that allows us to kill this nascent life. And each argument in this regard will generally be recognized as a unique application. Dismissing Kant's Categorical Imperative is essential to advancing an argument in favor of abortion.

We would seldom argue for euthanizing a patient in a coma if there's a likelihood they will emerge from it as a fully functioning person. But a child in the womb will usually "emerge" from it as such.

We would also never argue that a person who is found in a location that personally inconveniences us or trespasses against us should be killed, but that's the claim when we suggest a woman can kill her child due to its location within her body.

I've posted this link before. It's an atheist's argument against abortion. Part of it is a simple understanding that there is a continuum of human life. A fetus in the womb is part of the normal and natural trajectory of human life in every sense as is an infant, an adolescent, or an octogenarian. One of the great differences humans demonstrate compared to many other animals is our embrace of the value of life and our willingness to nurture and protect those who are weak and vulnerable. Abortion in a very real way strips this vital element of humanity from us.

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/

TMSH writes, "The science is settled. . . Life begins at conception."

Assume your own conclusion, deny all evidence and debate to the contrary. This is just what that silly Harvard student did. He said, if you ASSUME Roe v. Wade was wrong then my argument makes sense. Well, TMSH, many of us don't accept your assumptions about the state of debate.


-------------

TMSH writes "At the moment of conception the zygote has its own unique DNA signature and is alive. . . .If simply left alone [that zygote] will almost always grow into a human being."

Never mind the fact that some 40% of all zygotes are spontaneously aborted by the mother's body. Nothing to see here, folks, move along.


----------

TMSH writes "Dismissing Kant's Categorical Imperative is essential to advancing an argument in favor of abortion." This again assumes TMSH's own conclusion. The object of the categorical imperative--treat others how you wish you were treated--is normally taken to mean conscious human beings as opposed to rocks, plants, bacteria, or mice. You have to accept TMSH's conclusion that a fertilized cell is a human before the categorical imperative even applies. Kant never applied it to fetuses, let alone zygotes. TMSH has fixed Kant's oversight.


---------------
TMSH writes "We would seldom argue for euthanizing a patient in
a coma if there's a likelihood they will emerge from it as a fully functioning person."

Here TMSH takes away from the individual, who may have written a living will saying he wants to die rather than live comatose, the right to decide for himself. TMSH thus insists that the state (or TMSH and others who share his opinion) have the power to vet when a person gets to die. This is a retrograde position that has been rejected in Europe and is on the way out in the States as well. It is ironic when society moves towards giving the individual more personal autonomy and conservatives argue that the state should regulate the most intimate of personal behavior.


---------------

There are three principles that inform TMSH's argument. First, he is the one who decides when the debate over the origin of life is over. Second, inconvenient facts like spontaneous abortion are to be ignored. Third, TMSH determines what a woman may do with her body and whether an older or ailing person may choose to end her own life on her own terms.

This is a consistent doctrine. It is that the state (or TMSH and people who agree with him) get to decide what rights the individual has over his or her own body and life. Individual freedoms are sacred except when they contradict his political impulses.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The science is settled on this part of the
> discussion, so most pro abortion arguments choose
> not to engage this portion of it.

The "part of the discussion" you're referring to isn't the "part of the discussion" that's at issue.

Roe vs. Wade (and the debate about abortion) was NEVER about "when life begins." Ever.

It was about when a bunch of alive human cells are considered a PERSON for legal status. It's about that now. Not about when cells are 'alive,' but when a bunch of cells are a PERSON.

The toenails you cut off (I assume) every few weeks are fully human cells, that are completely alive, and contain full human DNA. They're as much a "living human being" as a blastocyte is.
Which is why the argument isn't about, and never was about, "life." But about when living cells are a PERSON.

Of course, Harvard also produced Timothy Leary.

If you (generic "you") believe a human life begins at conception, then all abortion, even for cases of rape or fatal birth defects is murder. Of course, many, many people do NOT believe human life begins at conception. In my opinion as a person with an awful lot of biology courses under my belt and as a woman, an embryo is not human. It certainly has the potential for becoming a human, but it doesn't get there for quite a few months. Note this was also common religious belief throughout the Old Testament times and early Christian times. Until "quickening" (when the fetus could be felt to move) an abortion was acceptable. Throughout the 1970s and 80s, religious groups (with the notable exception of the Roman Catholic Church) were strong supporters of pro-choice legislation.

BTW, I have never believed a fetus or embryo was a human person. However I was pretty neutral on the case of abortion until I became pregnant. I then realized that my dearly wanted pregnancy was an impact on my body that I could never force on someone who didn't want the pregnancy. I became strongly pro-choice.

Why not begin prosecuting men for creating "unwanted" human "life?"

It seems to me that only vesting men with the same types of life-long consequences, which TMSH so obviously desires, can solve the "control" issues he has with what happens to or with a woman's body.

For example, babies' fathers can be easily identified by DNA at birth. Eventually the DNA data bank could track down the family, then the paternity, of any child. If the father had conceived an "unwanted" child - through whatever unintended means - in addition to (the already badly administered) child support, he would be liable for prosecution for negligent copulation resulting in the single parenthood of a inarguable human life (the de facto baby).

A drunk screw with an equally drunk woman? Too bad, buddy, get your affairs in order, because for the next 18 years, all of your weekends will be spent cleaning state highways, or there will be a warrant for your arrest. No choice, no "circumstance" arguments. DNA, get busy, sir.

Oh, I can bet my britches that all talk of the "sanctity" of human fetal tissue would magically disappear overnight.

We are talking about taking responsibility for one's actions, correct? A mother's "freedoms" are seriously impaired, 24/7/365, at the birth of a child for the next 18 years. If we want to toy with womans' "choices," we should make sure that men are faced with the same sorts of "choices."

This should not be deemed O/T. A man started this conversation, as to responsibility to and for human zygotes.