There are some stories going around as of late that deals with abortion. This more specifically deals with what the Republican Party’s 2012 Platform has to say, or more like does not say, on the issue of abortion. Now let us take a look at what the Republican Party 2012 platform supposedly says on this issue.
“Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”
Now here are those “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Deceleration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
But now let us take a look at the 14th amendment, which applies to the States of the US.
“No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
But now let us take a look at the 5th amendment, which applies to the Federal government of the US.
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Both of these amendments happen to be known as the Due Processes Clause, one applies to the Federal government and the other applies to the State governments.
Now we have to keep in mind that the Republicans have in mind that a persons life starts after the egg has been fertilized by a sperm. Whether you agree with this point or not is irrelevant to the view itself. So this will not be about the potential correctness, or potential incorrectness, about the view of a person starting when an egg has been fertilized by an a sperm.
Now there have been some complaints that having a personhood amendment added to the Constitution that involves this view of it would outlaw abortions, period, especially in cases of rape and incest. Now let us take a look and see if this would follow, or at all.
Now when we someone is executed by the State, this is the state taking action to end the life of another person. But this was done because of due processes. The person was deprived of life, which are protected against infringement from other individuals, the state government, and federal government, by going through due processes. They had their day in court, and evidence was presented to the judge, and a jury was brought about and reviewed the evidence on the case to see if the defendant should be deprived of life. The jury comes up with their verdict and the judge comes up with the sentencing.
Now the personhood idea, which has a fertilized egg as a life, means that this person shall not be deprived of life unless goes through due processes. This does not say that abortion is not allowed, because abortion, under this view, would be similar to killing someone who murdered a family of five, i.e. would go through due processes. This especially does not mean that abortion will not be allowed even under cases of incest and rape. All it says is that a person has a right to life unless they go through due processes to take the life of this person, intentionally.
Take Texas for example, they are a state that exercises the 14th amendment by depriving someone of their life by going through the processes of due processes. Texas holds a trial on the crime that this person supposedly committed, and a jury is convened to hear the evidence. If the jury finds that the allegations of a crime are meet with the necessary evidence to convince them that the crime was committed by that individual, then that person is found guilty and the judge orders the convicted criminal to have themselves deprived of life by the order of the state. It is through trial or going before a state judge that a person is deprived of their life, as is to be followed by the US Constitution, which applies to the Federal level with the 5th amendment itself.
The Republicans are saying: (1) A fertilized egg is legally a person and so has inherent rights that apply to them, i.e. Bill of Rights., (2) The states will determine the due processes that it takes if one is to deprive that person of their life. So the people of the state will decide what the processes would be in which to decide if that person is to be deprived of life.
The people of that state would probably even serve on a jury to decide the case of depriving that person of life or not. This way the state of California can come up with one due processes in deciding on depriving that person of life, and the state of Hawaii can decide on a different way of due processes on depriving that person of that life. In other words, one may get an abortion at state X, while not at state Y, because state X allows for that person to be deprived of life. You also have the freedom to travel to which state you would like if you would want to have that person deprived of life in a legal manner, like you would with someone who is going to get the death penalty. Different states can come up with their own processes, and so there is a variety of views and places of where it may be, and also some places in which it may not be. One view is not forced on all states, but only those states who self-govern to have that law are it forced on. And if you do not like that law, then you may move to where that law is not holden to. You may even change laws through grass-roots exercising of first amendment to peacefully assemble and petition representative with grievances. This way you are protecting against the tyranny of the majority.
Now if someone where to come on to your private property uninvited, or even enter your private property uninvited, you cannot just shoot them or kill them, especially when they do not pose immediate danger to your own life. But now if you did invite someone on to your private property, or even your private property, you bear responsibility for your choice of letting that person onto your private property or entering your private property.
But also take it that the person did not choose to be brought to your private property, or into your private property. The circumstances from which they arrived in your private property where not of their making. Instead, they were the making of your choosing, or not choosing. But for them having no say in how they came about or them occupying your private property, you still want to deprive them of their life that they did not even ask for or circumstances that they asked for. You would want to deprive them of their rights when they had no choice in the circumstances of them coming about or where they occupy.
This has nothing to say about birth control, since birth control is pregnancy prevention, or “Person-Prevention”, instruments. They prevent the necessary condition of a sperm fertilizing an egg from happening. The whole point is to not even allow for fertilization to happen. So there is no person in existence which you would be depriving of life without due processes. There is no fertilized egg to begin with, so there is no person to begin with. No person was harmed in the making of this.