Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

The human (?) face of abortion

Some of you may have missed this article, in yesterday’s LAT. No one comes off looking good.

Don’t forget, oral arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood will be held today.

Hat tip: Mere Comments.

Discussions - 6 Comments

Thanks for bringing the LAT article to the forefront. This was a very distrubing article.

It is interesting how the pro-abortion movement has to remove all emotion from the debate, comparing the unborn child to a chicken egg...

John

Take-away quote:

She regrets having to pay $750 for the abortion, but Amanda says she does not doubt her decision. "It’s not like it’s illegal. It’s not like I’m doing anything wrong," she says.

I couldn’t finish reading it. It made my stomach tie in knots.

See Ben Shapiro’s response

It was tough to read. A good reminder though, for each of us.

Michael,


Good link on the Shapiro article. He is absolutely right. It reminded me a fellow law student who wears a pin on her bag:


I Love Pro-Choice Docs


Makes me cringe every time.

I wish someone could determine whether the fetus is human, and if not, at what point is becomes human. This is metaphysics though, so it is probably asking too much. Here are some random thoughts on the abortion:

If the fetus were human, and someone saw an abortion doctor about to abort it, that person could kill the doctor in order to stop the abortion, and this would be completely legal (it would be a justifiable killing). One is allowed to kill in the defense of others (humans), when deadly force is being used or about to be used against them. Does anyone know if anyone tried for murder of an abortion doctor has tried this defense? It would seem to allow juries to determine whether the fetus is human, one could build precedent, etc. It sounds like a law professor fantasy scenario; anyone know if they have written about it?

If the fetus were not human then it could be property (one cannot own a human since the 13th amendment). Because two people were responsible for the creation of property they would either be tenants in common or joint tenants. In either circumstance, both property owners must agree to a common course of action concerning the property. If they do not, then they go to court. A court can issue an injunction prohibiting a particular use, or can issue damages to the other co-tenant if the one tenant acts outside of his powers.

Several legal results if the fetus is property (given stem cells it will be someday unless Roe is quickly overturned):

1. The co-tenant (woman) could not destroy the fetus without the other co-tenant’s consent (man). I think a case like this was already tried, and the plaintiff failed (though he might not have argued the fetus was property).

2. If the fetus were destroyed the woman would have to "buy-out" the man’s share. I have no idea how much a fetus is worth, but it would probably be worth a lot. Because most people do not have the funds to pay, this threat would mean little; but I believe the doctor would have to pay as well. He "converted" the man’s share of property without his consent. There is no defense to this other than consent. I think the chance of being sued would push the price up and limit the number of abortions performed because they would be a lot more expensive than the currently are.

3. Finally, I think the property argument would work because Court judgments are not State action (the 14th amendment concern allowing Roe) with the exception of enforcment of real covenants. People could bring lawsuits to enjoin abortions, or at least get money from them and limit future ones, and it seems most probable that no one could bring a constitutional complaint aganist the State because it is merely administering property law.

I think the argument might be vunerable because some would argue that the fetus is the woman’s property, but I do not see how this can be. The fetus owes its existence to both co-tenants, and one co-tenant cannot claim complete ownership unless the other co-tenant gives his share as a gift. The dispositive gift concern in this case would be "intent." Obviously if it went to trial the man would claim he did not intend to give his share away, therefore no gift, therefore ownership would be split between the two people.

I’d like to hear thoughts about my observation.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/7581