That is an argument that mothers should be punished for being negligent during pregnancy but not an argument for personhood. You could actually craft an argument that punishes mothers for actions while pregnant while not granting fetus' personhood. Personhood though is a legal and constitutional concept with very important rights associated with it. What the rest of you seem to be saying is that no you wouldn't actually grant personhood to fetus.
I never said children weren't people. Fetuses aren't born yet so, obviously, they'll still be treated differently to minors. I wouldn't count them in a census because they're still unborn. But, as I said, those are moot issues concerned with government bureucracy and the topic is whether or not their lives should be protected and I say yes.
I believe there was a thread started about this topic regarding CPS intervention and it was ignored/ chastised by the conservatives on the board.
38 states disagree with you. If a violent act causes the death of a mother and/or her unborn fetus, these states have statutes that allow for prosecution of homicide/double homicide. And the last time I checked...homicide is defined as the deliberate and unlawful killing of a person by another. http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx Where the differences lie between these states are at which trimester...
the moral contradiction is that if the mother consents, it's not considered the deliberate killing of a person, legally
To respond to you and Dei's post at the same time this is why I question whether people who say that fetus' are people actually fully mean that and as Commodore note there is something inconsistent about these laws. I personally don't agree with those laws and I think even supporters of those laws see them as a back door way of eventually banning abortion. As I said laws can be crafted that punish crimes committed against the pregnant more severely just like hate crimes laws apply punish some crimes more severely. My contention is that the Constitution defines personhood and grants rights and protections based on such. If people really want to consider fetuses people then those should also apply under equal protection.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said define "personhood" but it is clear that the Constitution outlines certain rights to being a person. 14th Amendment. [rquoter]1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/rquoter] So if fetus are people then equal protection should apply to them.
More of a front door way to compel people to acknowledge the unborn are human beings, deserving of our protection. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373961/symbol-lie-kevin-d-williamson#!
I dont fully understand why you think the Personhood argument needs to be refuted by me or others that believe that the fetus should have protection...President Bush signed into law: Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I am not a legalist or lawyer, but why are we arguing about its merits, when the courts have already ruled on its constitutionality? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act refer to the opposition section of this link for more...
If you read through the link you provide though it states that very argument. [rquoter]The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child." However, the reticence of a federal law to authorize federal prosecution of a particular act committed under federal jurisdiction does not prevent states from passing their own laws against the act committed under their jurisdiction. Meanwhile the definition of all unborn babies as “members of the species homo sapiens” in section (d) says essentially what proposed “personhood” laws say.[3] Sponsors of such proposals say such legal language will trigger the “collapse” clause in Roe v. Wade, by establishing what Roe said must be established for legal abortion to end. [4] Several state supreme courts have ruled that sections (a) through (c) are not threatened by Roe, [5] but no court has addressed whether Roe can survive the triggering of its “collapse” clause by section (d).[/rquoter] As Commodore notes some don't even see this as a backdoor argument. I will agree with people like him who oppose abortion that if fetuses were considered people then abortion would have to be outlawed. While this law does protect the unborn in criminal cases it is skirting the issue about whether fetus are people. As the link you cite shows it leaves it as a very big grey area. My contention is though if fetal personhood is established then that personhood should be granted the rights to people as stated in the 14th Amendment.
As I have stated before, I do not have a background in law, so my knowledge and ability to defend is limited to google...My understanding so far is that the Courts have explicitly defined what is fetal protection and have made explicit language separating this law from the prosecution of women that choose to have abortions. However there are some that hope to tear down Roe vs Wade using a particular clause("d") of the Unborn victims of violence act. Considering that the courts were able to rule on A-C without any such objections, I find it to be paranoia that the courts wont rule favorably for pro-choice advocates in regards to clause "d"... I do understand the topic of abortion to be an extremely tough decision for the courts to act upon, and its trepidation at providing explicit language defining "personhood" for fetuses...but it seems that new legislation and laws are being submitted that expand such rights to fetuses... The original topic of whether the state has the right to prosecute a woman for knowingly using illegal drugs to harm the well being of her unborn child should be prosecuted...thats where I stand on the matter based on my limited knowledge of legality, and my broader understanding of medicine...the length of such sentences are up to law pundits to argue and debate about.
But an abortion is far more harmful to an unborn child than exposure to drugs, yet the latter is illegal while the former is permitted. If it's not a person and can therefore be aborted, exposing it to drugs should not matter.
It's because natal issues in the legal world have always been about balancing the rights & interests of the mother vs. the child. That's why the Supreme Court set an arbitrary limit on abortions at the time of "quickening;" in other words, that is the point at which they think a baby's right to life, so to speak, outweighs the mother's right to make decisions regarding child-rearing/bearing. No jurisprudence sets a hard and fast line about when a fetus is or is not a legal person; it is a constantly moving target. As for drug use, the mother's interest is simply not assigned a very great weight, particularly in the case of illegal drugs, since no one has a legitimate expectation of freely using those drugs pregnant or not. Thus, the fetus's "personhood" rights kick in at an earlier stage.
