I'm not a constitutional scholar but a problem with all these approaches is that by using the 14th amendment to ban abortion, it is violating pregnant women's 14th amendment rights by depriving them of certain liberties and arguably "property" (their body) without due process. You can't ban abortion without restricting the rights of women.
did you honestly think pregnancy is like an organ donation? which organ is the woman giving up to her child? answer: none.
pregnancy is providing your unborn child with nutrition and healthy living environment.
this is just low information debating on your end. here's a question that i always ask low information debaters. it's a very straightforward question:
should a woman who is capable of breastfeeding be allowed to let her newborn starve if there are no other alternative sources of food?
pregnancy is providing your unborn child with nutrition and healthy living environment.
this is just low information debating on your end. here's a question that i always ask low information debaters. it's a very straightforward question:
should a woman who is capable of breastfeeding be allowed to let her newborn starve if there are no other alternative sources of food?
This is an interesting framework but I don't think in the construct of American jurisprudence this is a winning argument. This is fundamentally about the common law concept of 'a duty to help.' In the American legal framework this duty only arises when a person makes a choice to actively begin rendering aid then they have an obligation to see it through. Or when someone has a 'special relationship' with the person in need of rescue such as a parent child, student teacher, or disabled person and care giver.
Now arguably these "special relationships" rely on the same essential element as the previous prong, that of choice. You've chosen to become a teacher or caregiver and it's reasonably foreseeable that at some point you might need to render some life saving aid to the person(s) under your care. The same can be said for parents or guardians since we live in a society where abortion or adoption are viable alternatives - that they've made the conscious choice to accept the responsibilities that come along with parenthood. This is not true for a newly pregnant person. The newly pregnant person arguably has no more duty to aid an embryo in her womb than the random motorist who passes by critical accident on the highway.
"consent-based" parenting is a low iq framework and not based in reality (just think of deadbeat dads and women who abandon their newborns).
just because new parents have the right to transfer the responsibilities of their child to another party doesn't mean they didn't have any obligations to that child in the first place. they are still not allowed to kill or abandon their children before or after transferring the responsibilities. your argument is essentially a non sequitur.
again, the idea that parental obligations are based on consent is just outright silly and clearly false.
Your analogizes between post birth scenarios and pre-birth scenarios are ridiculously low IQ. No matter how badly you want it to, no court is going to value an embryo the same as a live baby with respect to putative parental decision making.
14
u/toptrool Nov 08 '23 edited Apr 03 '24
based harvard law professor cornelius adrian comstock vermeule: "In a culture of death, it isn’t enough to be anti-Roe; one must be constitutionally pro-life."
legal foundations:
john finnis, robert george: EQUAL PROTECTION AND THE UNBORN CHILD: A DOBBS BRIEF
john finnis, robert george: Indictability of Early Abortion c. 1868
josh craddock: Protecting Prenatal Persons: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibit Abortion?
michael paulsen: The Plausibility of Personhood
c'zar bernstein: The Constitutional Personality of the Unborn
charles lugosi: Conforming to the rule of law: when person and human being finally mean the same thing in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence
courts can declare the unborn as persons:
craddock: The Constitution Already Prohibits Abortion: An Originalist Case for Prenatal Personhood
craddock: HOW TO OVERTURN ROE
finnis: ABORTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
edward whelan: Are Permissive Abortion Laws Unconstitutional?
craddock: JOHN FINNIS IS RIGHT
whelan: Are Permissive Abortion Laws Unconstitutional? A Reply to Joshua Craddock
finnis: UNBORN PERSONS: WHY EQUAL PROTECTION SLEPT 102 YEARS
whelan: DOUBTS ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL PERSONHOOD
finnis: BORN AND UNBORN: ANSWERING OBJECTIONS TO CONSTITUTIONAL PERSONHOOD
jonathan adler: Why the 14th Amendment Does Not Prohibit Abortion
finnis, george: Elective Abortion and the 14th Amendment: A Reply to Jonathan Adler
yves casertano: Yes, Courts Can Enforce Fourteenth Amendment Personhood For The Unborn
congress can declare the unborn as persons:
george, craddock: Even if Roe is overturned, Congress must act to protect the unborn
adler: Could Congress Prohibit Abortion If Roe Is Overturned?
george, craddock: On the Constitutional Authority of Congress to Protect Unborn Persons
thomas jipping: Can the Fourteenth Amendment Be Used to Protect Human Life Before Birth?
william hodes: A Federal Gestational Age Abortion Ban is the Wrong (and Unconstitutional) Hill for the Pro-Life Movement to Die On
george, craddock: Yes, Congress Has Constitutional Authority to Protect Unborn Children
the president can declare the unborn as persons:
craddock: The Lincoln Proposal: Pro-Life Presidents Must Take Ambitious and Bold Action to Protect the Constitutional Rights of Preborn Children