Log in

View Full Version : They can't make abortion illegal! Or can they?



Pages : 1 [2]

discretedancer
05-07-2005, 06:07 AM
"Someday an artificial womb may be developed and even a 1 nanosecond old zygote will be capable of surviving outside the mother's uterus. Under current law, that day will mark the day that all abortions become illegal. It's a ways off."

Unless we define the law that the being must survive WITHOUT OUTSIDE SUPPORT STRUCTURES (mother, artificial womb, etc)

Jenny
05-07-2005, 06:21 AM
^^
Yeah. Nice. And then who is going to actually care for all the abandoned zygotes, let alone when they become babies? The government? They're doing a GREAT job with the ones they've already got, aren't they? That will never happen because the result would be a governmental baby factory.

Jenny
05-07-2005, 06:24 AM
I know, that's my point, if a woman gave birth and didn't do anything for the baby, it would die (and she'd to to jail). A newborn baby cannot survive outside the uterus on its own. So technically speaking, a newborn is not "viable".


No, it can survive PHYSICALLY. Like it can live and breathe on its own. Viability is not defined by helplessness, it's defined by the ability to be biologically separated from the woman and still sustain life.

stant
05-08-2005, 11:38 PM
Unless we define the law that the being must survive WITHOUT OUTSIDE SUPPORT STRUCTURES (mother, artificial womb, etc)
Excellent point, and (although for an entirely different reason) precisely what the most racist, pro-segregation lawmakers attempted to do following the adoption of the 14th amendment. They went on a jihad passing new laws in an effort to circumvent the clear intention of the Constitution. Laws that superficially appeared race neutral were not in the slightest race neutral. Poll testing, for instance, was clearly intended to prevent black americans the right to vote, the very same americans who had systematically been kept illiterate under slavery.

Your definition or interpretation would have a similar (although I suspect unintended in your case) effect. It would deny infants, toddlers, the handicapped, the disabled, the sick, and the elderly equal protection. Such an interpretation either by enforcement, or statutory codified definition, wouldn't even make it past a district fed court and be struck down.


Yeah. Nice. And then who is going to actually care for all the abandoned zygotes, let alone when they become babies? The government? They're doing a GREAT job with the ones they've already got, aren't they?
The USG would be required to under equal protection. Like I said earlier, these two words had an unprecendent amount of consequences following their adoption. A similar consequence of equal protection is the vastly disproportionate sums of money spent on special education in public schools vs. moneys spent on healthy non-handicapped students. It is an ultimately one of the most humane clauses in the Constitution, yet also one of the most difficult to adhere to or understand.



That will never happen because the result would be a governmental baby factory.Some would say this is already the result of equal protection. I remain a believer. No one ever said doing the right thing would be easy.

"No man is an island." John Donne