The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law.
Personhood Q&A
_
1. If the unborn child is a living person under the law, then would an expectant mother be charged with manslaughter if she falls down the stairs and suffers a miscarriage?
According to the Code of Alabama section 13A-6-3, "a person commits manslauhter if he recklessly causes the death of another person." The key word is "recklessly." Before a mother can be sentenced for manslaughter, the state must be able to prove that it was her recklessness that caused the death of the unborn child. The point to keep in mind is that the charge of manslaughter would apply equally to a mother whose conduct causes the death of her two-week-old child as it would to one who causes the death of her unborn child. In either case, the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty before a jury of her peers.
What if a pregnant woman is walking down the street when a young man who is texting while driving swerves off the road and hits her hard enough to kill her baby – should the young man be charged with manslaughter? Yes, because according to Alabama law his reckless conduct caused the death of another person. If the charge of manslaughter can be brought against the young man in this scenario, then it can also be brought against a pregnant woman who causes the death of her own child in a case of equivalent recklessness.
This application of the charge of manslaughter to those who cause the death of an unborn child through reckless conduct, however, is not something that would come about as the result of a personhood amendment. It is what the law currently states.
2. If the unborn child were a person according to the law, would that make in vitro fertilization illegal?
A personhood amendment would make the intentional killing of embryos an act of murder, but there is some very good news for those who are in need of in vitro ferilization. There actually is a way to complete the in vitro fertilization process without causing the death of the unused embryos. It's called oocyte cryopreservation or egg freezing.
According to an article by the Medical Journal of Australia, sperm cryopreservation has been in use since 1953 and oocyte cryopreservation since 1984 which was just one year after the first successful embryo cryopreservation. Oocyte cryopreservation allows the couple to preserve unfertilized eggs that can be individually fertilized when pregnancy is desired, and the extra eggs can be discarded without killing an unwanted person.
[Keith L Harrison et al, “Oocyte cryopreservation as an adjunct to the assisted reproductive technologies,” Medical Journal of Australia 2007; 186(7): 379, accessed online at: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_07_020407/letters_020407_fm.pdf]
3. What effect would the Personhood Amendment have on birth control?
Unfortunately, there are several types of birth control that include an abortifacient as added insurance against pregnancy. The website abort73.com contains a list of birth control measures that do and several that do not include some form of an abortifacient. Those opposed to the Personhood Amendment will often argue that it would make birth control illegal, but in reality it would only cause some birth control methods to become illegal. There would still be a variety of options available for those who find birth control to be necessary.
[http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/which_birth_control_methods_cause_abortion]
4. Can the pro-life argument be made without relying on religious beliefs?
The argument that life begins at conception can certainly be made from science, and indeed that very argument has been made by medical doctors for centuries. (See the section “Personhood in Science” for examples.) However, the evidence from science is insufficient for the complete pro-life argument. Science can tell us that the unborn child is a living human being, but it cannot tell us if that child has an inalienable right to life. Our founding fathers recognized correctly that rights can only be inalienable if they come from God. Without Him, all rights are dependent upon the whims of society.
"The acknowledgment of the unalienable right of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is at the same time an acknowledgment of the omnipotence, the omniscience, and the all-pervading goodness of God." - John Quincy Adams
[John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Cincinnati Astronomical Society, On the Occasion of Laying the Corner Stone of An Astronomical Observatory, On the 10th of November, 1843, at 12-15 (Cincinnati: Shepard & Co., 1843)]
5. Should personhood legislation include an exception which allows abortion in order to save the life of the mother?
A life of the mother exception to any abortion law would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because other classes of people are not given that same kind of exception. For example, there is no exception to the laws against murder which would allow a doctor to kill one member of a set of conjoined twins in order to save the life of the other. The doctor is legally required to attempt to save the lives of both twins until such a time as one of them dies in spite of his efforts, and then he is to continue to devote all of his energy to saving the surviving twin regardless of which one it is. The same application can be made to the unborn child and the mother. The goal of the law in such situations must always be to save both.
6. Can an unborn child be a person before he is conscious or self-aware?
There are many people who are neither conscious nor self-aware who are still considered persons under the law. Examples include those in comas, those with Alzheimers and the mentally handicapped.
The actual definition of the word "person" according to Webster's New Riverside University Dictionary is first "a living human being" and second "the composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality." The word "personhood" is defined as "the condition of being a person, especially those qualities that confer distinct individuality."
The concepts of consciousness and self-awareness are noticeably absent from these definitions. The focus seems rather to be on humanity and individuality. When we view the unborn child in light of this focus, it becomes obvious that he is indeed a person.
7. Do laws against abortion really make abortions less safe?
If the unborn child is a person possessing the same inalienable rights as the mother, then those who claim that laws against abortion make the practice of abortion less safe are essentially claiming that laws against murder make murder less safe.
After all, it should be apparent to everyone that the illegality of murder has many unforeseen consequences for the one committing the murder. Not only does he have to be fearful of his victim fighting back, but he must also be constantly on guard against police officers and nosy neighbors. This fear of being caught can be directly linked to a number of dangerous outcomes for potential murderers since they must now perpetuate their crime in dark areas that are often unfamiliar to them and full of hazards. If we would just make murder legal, then these poor murderers could kill people during the day and in the comfort of a safe and friendly environment.
This logic could be applied to any kind of crime. It is always possible to argue that the crime could have been committed with less danger if it were not a crime, but that does not in any way justify the crime itself.
8. The men who oppose abortion will never experience the challenges of pregnancy, so what gives them the right to pass legislation on it?
Men have the same right to pass legislation on abortion as those who have no fear of theft have a right to pass legislation against thievery.
9. Does the right to privacy guarantee that a woman has the right to have an abortion?
The right to privacy is not a specified, constitutional right. It has, however, been introduced in the courts as an application of the fifth and fourteenth amendments, and as long as it is constrained within the bounds of those two amendments, it is perfectly acceptable.
Nevertheless, the right to privacy cannot be claimed by a murderer as justification for his release. The same applies to theft, rape, assault and any other crime that involves the violation of one person’s rights by another. In the area of abortion, the right to privacy can only be invoked if one assumes that the unborn child is not a person. If, on the other hand, the unborn child is recognized as a living person, then the right to privacy can never be applied to the practice of abortion. Abortion would then involve the intentional killing of one person by another in an act of murder which can never be justified.
10. Do anti-abortion laws infringe upon the woman's "reproductive freedom"?
Reproductive freedom does not include the right to kill an unborn child any more than the freedom of the press grants permission for the news media to kill someone in order to write a story about it.
11. How can the unborn child be considered a separate person, if he cannot exist independent of his mother?
Fertilization does not take place in the womb. The new child has to travel from the Fallopian tubes into the uterus before implantation can occur. During this 7-10 day period, the child is his own independent life. In order to claim that the child is not a separate person in the womb, the pro-abortionist has to first explain how someone who exists as an independent person can lose that independent existence, become just a part of someone else, and then reclaim that independent existence at some later point.
This was the same point made by Dr. Horatio Storer in his book "Criminal Abortion:"
"Allowing, then, as must be done, that the ovum does not originate in the uterus; that for a time, however slight, during its passage through the Fallopian tube, its connection with the mother is wholly broken; that its subsequent history after impregnation is one merely of development, its attachment merely for nutrition and shelter, - it is not rational to suppose that its total independence, thus once established, becomes again merged into total identity, however temporary."
[Horatio R. Storer M.D., LL.B., Criminal Abortion (1868), pg. 10]
12. Wouldn't the criminalization of abortion result in tens of thousands of women dying from unsafe "back-alley" abortions?
The National Right to Life website provides the following answer to this question:
"Another stunning admission about the manufacturing of illegal abortion numbers comes from Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former director of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (now known as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League - - NARAL). In his classic 1979 book Aborting America, Dr. Nathanson wrote, ‘How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew that the figures were totally false and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the 'morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.’
A powerful debating point is to explain to your audience that for 1972, the year before Roe, the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortion. Those 39 mothers and their 39 children were very real tragedies that should have been prevented by providing support and care for the mother and her unborn child. The number 39 however is a far cry from those exaggerated figures of thousands, even tens of thousands, used by abortion advocates in their cause."
[Olivia Gans and Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., “Argument 4: If abortion is made illegal, women will die,” National Right to Life, http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/responseargument4.html]
13. Is it better for society to have babies aborted than to have them be brought up poor and neglected with a high risk of becoming criminals?
There have been many great men throughout history who began their life under difficult circumstances and who credit those early difficulties with giving them the strength that they needed in order to achieve greatness. In spite of this, however, the argument is still invalid. A person’s right to life is not determined by his circumstances. Our circumstances are constantly changing, and no one can predict what the future will hold. It is not unheard of for an affluent family to lose everything that they possess in a failed business deal. Would that family then be justified in killing their children just because they can no longer afford the same level of provision for them? Of course not, and neither can abortion be justified by the level of care that the mother is currently capable of providing.
< Previous Chapter Table of Contents
1. If the unborn child is a living person under the law, then would an expectant mother be charged with manslaughter if she falls down the stairs and suffers a miscarriage?
According to the Code of Alabama section 13A-6-3, "a person commits manslauhter if he recklessly causes the death of another person." The key word is "recklessly." Before a mother can be sentenced for manslaughter, the state must be able to prove that it was her recklessness that caused the death of the unborn child. The point to keep in mind is that the charge of manslaughter would apply equally to a mother whose conduct causes the death of her two-week-old child as it would to one who causes the death of her unborn child. In either case, the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty before a jury of her peers.
What if a pregnant woman is walking down the street when a young man who is texting while driving swerves off the road and hits her hard enough to kill her baby – should the young man be charged with manslaughter? Yes, because according to Alabama law his reckless conduct caused the death of another person. If the charge of manslaughter can be brought against the young man in this scenario, then it can also be brought against a pregnant woman who causes the death of her own child in a case of equivalent recklessness.
This application of the charge of manslaughter to those who cause the death of an unborn child through reckless conduct, however, is not something that would come about as the result of a personhood amendment. It is what the law currently states.
2. If the unborn child were a person according to the law, would that make in vitro fertilization illegal?
A personhood amendment would make the intentional killing of embryos an act of murder, but there is some very good news for those who are in need of in vitro ferilization. There actually is a way to complete the in vitro fertilization process without causing the death of the unused embryos. It's called oocyte cryopreservation or egg freezing.
According to an article by the Medical Journal of Australia, sperm cryopreservation has been in use since 1953 and oocyte cryopreservation since 1984 which was just one year after the first successful embryo cryopreservation. Oocyte cryopreservation allows the couple to preserve unfertilized eggs that can be individually fertilized when pregnancy is desired, and the extra eggs can be discarded without killing an unwanted person.
[Keith L Harrison et al, “Oocyte cryopreservation as an adjunct to the assisted reproductive technologies,” Medical Journal of Australia 2007; 186(7): 379, accessed online at: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_07_020407/letters_020407_fm.pdf]
3. What effect would the Personhood Amendment have on birth control?
Unfortunately, there are several types of birth control that include an abortifacient as added insurance against pregnancy. The website abort73.com contains a list of birth control measures that do and several that do not include some form of an abortifacient. Those opposed to the Personhood Amendment will often argue that it would make birth control illegal, but in reality it would only cause some birth control methods to become illegal. There would still be a variety of options available for those who find birth control to be necessary.
[http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/which_birth_control_methods_cause_abortion]
4. Can the pro-life argument be made without relying on religious beliefs?
The argument that life begins at conception can certainly be made from science, and indeed that very argument has been made by medical doctors for centuries. (See the section “Personhood in Science” for examples.) However, the evidence from science is insufficient for the complete pro-life argument. Science can tell us that the unborn child is a living human being, but it cannot tell us if that child has an inalienable right to life. Our founding fathers recognized correctly that rights can only be inalienable if they come from God. Without Him, all rights are dependent upon the whims of society.
"The acknowledgment of the unalienable right of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is at the same time an acknowledgment of the omnipotence, the omniscience, and the all-pervading goodness of God." - John Quincy Adams
[John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Cincinnati Astronomical Society, On the Occasion of Laying the Corner Stone of An Astronomical Observatory, On the 10th of November, 1843, at 12-15 (Cincinnati: Shepard & Co., 1843)]
5. Should personhood legislation include an exception which allows abortion in order to save the life of the mother?
A life of the mother exception to any abortion law would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because other classes of people are not given that same kind of exception. For example, there is no exception to the laws against murder which would allow a doctor to kill one member of a set of conjoined twins in order to save the life of the other. The doctor is legally required to attempt to save the lives of both twins until such a time as one of them dies in spite of his efforts, and then he is to continue to devote all of his energy to saving the surviving twin regardless of which one it is. The same application can be made to the unborn child and the mother. The goal of the law in such situations must always be to save both.
6. Can an unborn child be a person before he is conscious or self-aware?
There are many people who are neither conscious nor self-aware who are still considered persons under the law. Examples include those in comas, those with Alzheimers and the mentally handicapped.
The actual definition of the word "person" according to Webster's New Riverside University Dictionary is first "a living human being" and second "the composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality." The word "personhood" is defined as "the condition of being a person, especially those qualities that confer distinct individuality."
The concepts of consciousness and self-awareness are noticeably absent from these definitions. The focus seems rather to be on humanity and individuality. When we view the unborn child in light of this focus, it becomes obvious that he is indeed a person.
7. Do laws against abortion really make abortions less safe?
If the unborn child is a person possessing the same inalienable rights as the mother, then those who claim that laws against abortion make the practice of abortion less safe are essentially claiming that laws against murder make murder less safe.
After all, it should be apparent to everyone that the illegality of murder has many unforeseen consequences for the one committing the murder. Not only does he have to be fearful of his victim fighting back, but he must also be constantly on guard against police officers and nosy neighbors. This fear of being caught can be directly linked to a number of dangerous outcomes for potential murderers since they must now perpetuate their crime in dark areas that are often unfamiliar to them and full of hazards. If we would just make murder legal, then these poor murderers could kill people during the day and in the comfort of a safe and friendly environment.
This logic could be applied to any kind of crime. It is always possible to argue that the crime could have been committed with less danger if it were not a crime, but that does not in any way justify the crime itself.
8. The men who oppose abortion will never experience the challenges of pregnancy, so what gives them the right to pass legislation on it?
Men have the same right to pass legislation on abortion as those who have no fear of theft have a right to pass legislation against thievery.
9. Does the right to privacy guarantee that a woman has the right to have an abortion?
The right to privacy is not a specified, constitutional right. It has, however, been introduced in the courts as an application of the fifth and fourteenth amendments, and as long as it is constrained within the bounds of those two amendments, it is perfectly acceptable.
Nevertheless, the right to privacy cannot be claimed by a murderer as justification for his release. The same applies to theft, rape, assault and any other crime that involves the violation of one person’s rights by another. In the area of abortion, the right to privacy can only be invoked if one assumes that the unborn child is not a person. If, on the other hand, the unborn child is recognized as a living person, then the right to privacy can never be applied to the practice of abortion. Abortion would then involve the intentional killing of one person by another in an act of murder which can never be justified.
10. Do anti-abortion laws infringe upon the woman's "reproductive freedom"?
Reproductive freedom does not include the right to kill an unborn child any more than the freedom of the press grants permission for the news media to kill someone in order to write a story about it.
11. How can the unborn child be considered a separate person, if he cannot exist independent of his mother?
Fertilization does not take place in the womb. The new child has to travel from the Fallopian tubes into the uterus before implantation can occur. During this 7-10 day period, the child is his own independent life. In order to claim that the child is not a separate person in the womb, the pro-abortionist has to first explain how someone who exists as an independent person can lose that independent existence, become just a part of someone else, and then reclaim that independent existence at some later point.
This was the same point made by Dr. Horatio Storer in his book "Criminal Abortion:"
"Allowing, then, as must be done, that the ovum does not originate in the uterus; that for a time, however slight, during its passage through the Fallopian tube, its connection with the mother is wholly broken; that its subsequent history after impregnation is one merely of development, its attachment merely for nutrition and shelter, - it is not rational to suppose that its total independence, thus once established, becomes again merged into total identity, however temporary."
[Horatio R. Storer M.D., LL.B., Criminal Abortion (1868), pg. 10]
12. Wouldn't the criminalization of abortion result in tens of thousands of women dying from unsafe "back-alley" abortions?
The National Right to Life website provides the following answer to this question:
"Another stunning admission about the manufacturing of illegal abortion numbers comes from Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former director of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (now known as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League - - NARAL). In his classic 1979 book Aborting America, Dr. Nathanson wrote, ‘How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew that the figures were totally false and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the 'morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.’
A powerful debating point is to explain to your audience that for 1972, the year before Roe, the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortion. Those 39 mothers and their 39 children were very real tragedies that should have been prevented by providing support and care for the mother and her unborn child. The number 39 however is a far cry from those exaggerated figures of thousands, even tens of thousands, used by abortion advocates in their cause."
[Olivia Gans and Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., “Argument 4: If abortion is made illegal, women will die,” National Right to Life, http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/responseargument4.html]
13. Is it better for society to have babies aborted than to have them be brought up poor and neglected with a high risk of becoming criminals?
There have been many great men throughout history who began their life under difficult circumstances and who credit those early difficulties with giving them the strength that they needed in order to achieve greatness. In spite of this, however, the argument is still invalid. A person’s right to life is not determined by his circumstances. Our circumstances are constantly changing, and no one can predict what the future will hold. It is not unheard of for an affluent family to lose everything that they possess in a failed business deal. Would that family then be justified in killing their children just because they can no longer afford the same level of provision for them? Of course not, and neither can abortion be justified by the level of care that the mother is currently capable of providing.
< Previous Chapter Table of Contents