Darwin Writes:

I’m not sure your argument is factually true. Roe V. Wade doesn’t actually specifically allow a woman to determine whether something is alive, right? Doesn’t it just make abortions legal?

The de facto end result of Row versus Wade is that women were given the extra constitutional right to determine when human life begins. This is perfectly captured by the fact an assailant that harms a pregnant woman that wants her child will be charged with homicide if the fetus dies as a result of the attack. However, the same woman that decides to have the fetus aborted will not be charged with homicide. The result here is that a woman is given the extra constitutional right to determine when life begins.

Take for example the highly publicized Scott Peterson case several years back. At the end of the trial, Peterson was convicted of homicide of his wife and unborn eight month child (They are called children when the mother wants the fetus). Had the mother not been murder but elected to undergo a late term abortion she would not have been charged with homicide.

In this context, the application of murder is contingent on how the mother regards the fetus. A mother that regards the fetus as living can declare homicide while that same mother that regards the fetus as non-living can declare it not a homicide. Hence, the right to chose is a de fact right to determine what constitutes a living human in a certain context.

Allowing the government to define when life begins is like allowing the government to define what constitutes a family, or allowing the government to what IQ score you need in order to be considered ‘gifted’

How about letting the government determine how much wealth one can acquire before some of it should be reallocated or letting the government determine what kind of curriculum children should be taught at school. I must say its odd seeing you appeal to a libertarian argument in defense of abortion. I’m also surprised to see you express distrust of government when you blithely accept its role in redistributing wealth.

In any event, as I had already stated with Jamie’s comment, my idea is to ratify a constitutional amendment. As I’m sure most are aware, constitutional amendments require the most stringent criteria before they are passed into law. This rigorous criterion insures that the largest majority of people agree to this definition before it is passed. In no sense is this allowing the government the power to determine what life is. If anything, this is an attempt to restore the definition of life into the hands of the people away from the government.

I really don’t like the term ‘government’. It’s much too broad and is often used in poorly articulated arguments like your current one. However, if I’m to indulge, arguably the most important role government has is determining what can and can’t be killed. With this most basic determination government is able to establish the safety and security necessary for civilization. As I have stated on countless times, government is by definition the entity that has monopolistic power over coercion. It has this power for the explicit purpose of protecting its civilians. This odd extra-constitutional right for a subgroup of citizens, in addition of smacking of discrimination, strikes against the fundamental principle from which government is built. That is the right to determine who lives and who dies.

To blend the last two paragraphs into a more coherent whole I would say that the people, measured by the ratification of a constitutional amendment, should define what life is to allow the state to go back to providing its most important role. Protecting it’s citizens from murder. This clearly would include fetuses that have developed past the point the people have decided constitutes life.

Compelling argument:

A child a man agrees to have is one thing, but should a man have to pay child support when he makes it clear to a woman that he does not want one?

Jennifer Spenner for the Saginaw News and Kathy Barks Hoffman for the AP wrote about a Michigan man who recently challenged being forced to pay child support for his girlfriend’s baby — despite what he alleges were her assurances that she couldn’t get pregnant because of a medical condition, and her knowledge that he didn’t want a child.

He made the point to the court that if a woman can choose whether to abort, adopt out, or raise the child, a man should have the same right, and argued that Michigan’s paternity law violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Matt Dubay lost the case, which he previously acknowledged was a long shot — but should it have been?

Since reproductive rights grants woman the right to arbitrarily determine when life begins its seems fair that men are granted that same right. Of course this lead to the perverse outcome that a biological father who discovers he has a ten year old child has the right to deny that his child is a living being. Once more, given the supreme court’s argumentation this father’s rights is constitutionally guaranteed. Oh the wisdom of Roe vs Wade. What were they thinking?

Before i get lambasted by Jamie as a closest conservative pro lifer I wish to make clear my argument. My problem with Row vs Wade is that it found a constitutional right that by definition was only applicable to a subset of citizens. Woman were giving the extra constitutional right that, in a particular context, allows them to determine how the state defines life. Give additional rights to some citizens seems to work against the liberal value of the state treating everyone equally. It leads to state discrimination which we the state forcing fathers to support children they never wanted to have.

My solution to the problem of abortion is rather simple and if the Supreme court had not over step its constitutional bounds and forced legislation from the bench, then it probably would of been implemented. There should be a constitutional amendment defining when life begins. Abortions prior to this point are permissible because the people have determined that a fetus at that point is not living while abortions after that point are forbidden.

Its hard to see how this makes me either pro life or pro choice.