If you "declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person," it doesn't really mean that abortion or birth control (which might involve preventing implantation) would be illegal, particularly if protected by the federal Constitution. It would be inane, particularly given how many "persons" naturally cease to exist. As Justice Clark noted pre-Roe:
This is so even if we can determine, though even there the line is quite debatable, some point in the pregnancy where a "person" exists, that is, legally saying it occurs before birth. The allowance to criminalize most abortions after viability is one such line. It is quite different, however, from drawing the line at fertilization! As Justice Stevens noted:
The fact that even those strongly against abortion (including those who want to make it illegal to choose it) support stem cell research underlined that those against it were particularly extreme. The same applies here. A person can be against abortion and realize that labeling fertilized eggs "persons" and saying that rape victims cannot take "some" pills to prevent them from being implanted is, quite honestly, a tad absurd. As some in the first story note, it is in fact counterproductive if you are "pro-life" to support such in effect largely symbolic measures. This is not to say it won't likely cause some harm (e.g., state funding issues) -- laws tend to have some effect as underenforced sodomy laws showed -- but symbolism is largely what is at issue here.
Perverting the conversation even more is a tragic thing. I have noted that use of "fetus" bothers me in abortion discussions since it brings images of largely developed beings when most abortions occur early in the pregnancy. If babies will be the image when a fertilized egg (why not sperm ala Monty Python's The Meaning of Life?), it will be so much worse. The effort and funds used toward this business can be shifted in so much more useful ways. I would be inclined to say that even if I wanted abortion to be made criminal. Is this what we are seriously debating now? A law to make fertilized eggs people?
Remember, Mitt "he's sane you know" Romney supports this sort of thing.
---
* The "pro" side here include many who -- if they had their way -- would simply not allow birth control at all. Various efforts have been in place in respect to health insurance and funding where that is clear. On that level, it's pretty counterproductive, as AM noted, since birth control pills prevent the creation of all those fertilized eggs that will naturally be disposed of. Of course, "nature" did that, right?
The line drawn to allow "some" pills is also questionable on principle, since the other pills basically work the same way, but involve use of large doses of certain hormones that can affect fertilized eggs. Is it totally clear that a regular cycle of birth control pills might not possibly do that as well? Sure, it might be only a small chance, but "persons" are at stake! Some are not willing to risk even a handful of wrongly executed convicted murderers, after all.
To say that life is present at conception is to give recognition to the potential, rather than the actual. The unfertilized egg has life, and if fertilized, it takes on human proportions. But the law deals in reality, not obscurity -- the known, rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation. The phenomenon of [p218] life takes time to develop, and, until it is actually present, it cannot be destroyed. Its interruption prior to formation would hardly be homicide, and as we have seen, society does not regard it as such.The word "person" as found in the federal Constitution is used in ways that apply post-natally. It is not the same thing as "life," which in some form exists in each human cell and at conception as well. Persons are more than mere life, however, and it cheapens the word to apply it to fertilized eggs, which again naturally are disposed of regularly without any artificial means involved. The meaning of the unborn and at what point an embryo or fetus (though here we aren't even at the first point) reaches a point of meaning that merits "personhood" is a matter of great ethical, moral and religious debate. The idea that some state or states should set it in stone so that one group will win out is unjust.
This is so even if we can determine, though even there the line is quite debatable, some point in the pregnancy where a "person" exists, that is, legally saying it occurs before birth. The allowance to criminalize most abortions after viability is one such line. It is quite different, however, from drawing the line at fertilization! As Justice Stevens noted:
And if distinctions may be drawn between a fetus and a human being in terms of the state interest in their protection -- even though the fetus represents one of "those who will be citizens" -- it seems to me quite odd to argue that distinctions may not also be drawn between the state interest in protecting the freshly fertilized egg and the state interest in protecting the 9-month-gestated, fully sentient fetus on the eve of birth.One group pushing for a "personhood amendment" has this "fact sheet." Note how "most" forms of the pill are protected. That means some are not, including I would think "morning after pills" since there is a chance that they prevent implantation of fertilized eggs in some cases. (I got in trouble with Amanda Marcotte over at RH Reality Check over this issue, but Planned Parenthood, the Mayo Clinic, Rachel Maddow etc. have noted the chance this might occur given how the pills work.*) The same would apply to IUDs, which work in part by preventing implantation. As to in vitro, they say unused embryos must not be destroyed. This isn't always possible, and what sort of "person" rights exist when they can be created willy-nilly and held in limbo, perhaps for years, put at risk over time? No exceptions here for rape, it is noted explicitly.
The fact that even those strongly against abortion (including those who want to make it illegal to choose it) support stem cell research underlined that those against it were particularly extreme. The same applies here. A person can be against abortion and realize that labeling fertilized eggs "persons" and saying that rape victims cannot take "some" pills to prevent them from being implanted is, quite honestly, a tad absurd. As some in the first story note, it is in fact counterproductive if you are "pro-life" to support such in effect largely symbolic measures. This is not to say it won't likely cause some harm (e.g., state funding issues) -- laws tend to have some effect as underenforced sodomy laws showed -- but symbolism is largely what is at issue here.
Perverting the conversation even more is a tragic thing. I have noted that use of "fetus" bothers me in abortion discussions since it brings images of largely developed beings when most abortions occur early in the pregnancy. If babies will be the image when a fertilized egg (why not sperm ala Monty Python's The Meaning of Life?), it will be so much worse. The effort and funds used toward this business can be shifted in so much more useful ways. I would be inclined to say that even if I wanted abortion to be made criminal. Is this what we are seriously debating now? A law to make fertilized eggs people?
Remember, Mitt "he's sane you know" Romney supports this sort of thing.
---
* The "pro" side here include many who -- if they had their way -- would simply not allow birth control at all. Various efforts have been in place in respect to health insurance and funding where that is clear. On that level, it's pretty counterproductive, as AM noted, since birth control pills prevent the creation of all those fertilized eggs that will naturally be disposed of. Of course, "nature" did that, right?
The line drawn to allow "some" pills is also questionable on principle, since the other pills basically work the same way, but involve use of large doses of certain hormones that can affect fertilized eggs. Is it totally clear that a regular cycle of birth control pills might not possibly do that as well? Sure, it might be only a small chance, but "persons" are at stake! Some are not willing to risk even a handful of wrongly executed convicted murderers, after all.