06-17-2008, 11:10 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,054
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themaniacster
To answer this question, you need to know wether the fetus is alive and human.
Not whether some person considers it alive.
But whether it is alive, by definition. Since a fetus has cells and DNA, does breath, uses energy, and every other thing that makes it definably alive does exist in a fetus.
Now is a fetus Human?
A fetus has Human DNA, making it Human.
Therefor since a fetus is alive and human, it does have the right to live by our constitution.
|
Unfortunately, you failed to link the consititution, or any part of it that indicates that being alive gives you the right to continue breathing absent all other circumstances. You defined life in a reasonably sufficent fashion, and it certainly is human... But no corolation to the constitutionality of it.
Quote:
The Constitution is not in any way a document that draws any distinction from science. It's all about law and government, to be specific, property law. Therefore, sadly, the issue of when life begins does not play a significant role in the argument I put forth here.
When the nation was being formed, it was of much debate as to who was going to be able to vote. Up until that point only property owners could vote. And only property owners had any measure of sovereignty. But not everyone in the Americas was free [not everyone owned property]. Paradox...
They really liked the system and structure of property law, but hated the limitations of who was allowed to participate in it. So how do you establish property rights for everyone if they own no real property (real estate)? Simple enough, you declare that each person is his/her own property. Follow so far?
But simply being born does not fully endow you with all rights. For example, you don't have the right to vote until you are 18. At that time you are deemed wholly and totally responsible for yourself and your actions. Until you turn 18 you are considered dependent upon your parents (guardians). So, under the law, there are progressive steps to becoming the full and complete owner of one's self. Completely self sufficient and sovereign.
Okay, so let me jump to the point. In order for one to take ownership of one's property they must establish varying degrees of independence from it's parents. The first step in doing so is being born. Until that time as you are wholly separated from your mother, you have not taken possession of your property.
Since the fetus is property, (I know, describing as such is a bit repugnant, but we are talking strictly property law and sovereignty), and it doesn't own it yet, who does? The mother. And the mother (assuming she's over 18) has full property rights. Rights over her body and everything in it. Under the constitution, she is a sovereign entity. She and she alone has the right to determine what she does with her property.
Therefore, abortion is constitutional. Morally repugnant, to be sure, but the basic premise of our system of law and government, is based on sovereignty and property rights.
Having said all that. The landmark case of Roe v Wade was not decided on property rights. It was decided on Privacy Rights, which are derived from property rights.
In closing, I would like to say I am opposed to abortions except in generally accepted exceptional circumstances. But I see any attempt to pass a law against it as a disastrous move. It's nothing more than a band aid for the failure of teaching each successive generation proper decision making and giving them proper moral guidance tools.
|
|