The Republican stand on personhood rights does not carry through as a right a child has before they are born with the right as a citizen.
The laws of the USA governing child rights are primarily criminal in application. Even when a child is earning money as a child model or owns property the laws that exist surrounding their rights are protective and criminal of the people taking care of them.
So, when Republicans state a fetus should have the same right as a USA child it is glamorizing the content. The Republicans are doing nothing but criminalizing pregnancy. They are adding murder to abortion law. The fetus has no extraordinary rights that parents don't provide. The very nature of a child is dependent upon parental or guardian care. The idea a child stands alone as a citizen is not correct. Heck, it isn't even correct when one asks a pediatrician how they view the treatment of a child. Most pediatricians realize the outcome of a child's treatment depends on the compliance of the parent to rendering the treatment. Frequently, pediatric medicine does not view a child as an autonomous person, but, a child in treatment with their parent(s).
The idea a personhood amendment is realistic is contrived. It is not adding rights to a fetus, it is criminalizing pregnancy. Pregnancy by its nature is not an autonomous ability of a fetus, but, the dedication of the mother to carry the fetus to term. So, the entire concept is bizarre. It removes the 'parent-child' relationship from the 'state of being pregnant.' It is hideous. A fetus does not have a pregnancy, a woman does.
A uterus does not transfer its ownership to a fetus because it is conceived. A uterus belongs to the woman. It always belongs to the woman. The placenta, is an organ belonging to the woman and acts between the fetus and the woman. The umbilical cord belongs to the woman as a means to support the fetus. There is nothing here viable to the idea a fetus has an autonomous right to dominate the ownership of the woman's body.
A constitutional amendment criminalizing abortion as a means to personhood is not based in reality and lends itself to act in ways that separates a woman's body from her habeas corpus. Did I make that clear?
A woman has habeas corpus. When a constitutional amendment removes her body away from her for the purpose of birthing a fetus, it acts against the writ of the USA Constitution.
A woman has habeas corpus that cannot be removed to the contrived right of a fetus. The fetus has no right to habeas corpus until it is autonomous in its ability to live on its own. Up to that point, the woman has control over her body. It is very simple.
The laws of the USA governing child rights are primarily criminal in application. Even when a child is earning money as a child model or owns property the laws that exist surrounding their rights are protective and criminal of the people taking care of them.
So, when Republicans state a fetus should have the same right as a USA child it is glamorizing the content. The Republicans are doing nothing but criminalizing pregnancy. They are adding murder to abortion law. The fetus has no extraordinary rights that parents don't provide. The very nature of a child is dependent upon parental or guardian care. The idea a child stands alone as a citizen is not correct. Heck, it isn't even correct when one asks a pediatrician how they view the treatment of a child. Most pediatricians realize the outcome of a child's treatment depends on the compliance of the parent to rendering the treatment. Frequently, pediatric medicine does not view a child as an autonomous person, but, a child in treatment with their parent(s).
The idea a personhood amendment is realistic is contrived. It is not adding rights to a fetus, it is criminalizing pregnancy. Pregnancy by its nature is not an autonomous ability of a fetus, but, the dedication of the mother to carry the fetus to term. So, the entire concept is bizarre. It removes the 'parent-child' relationship from the 'state of being pregnant.' It is hideous. A fetus does not have a pregnancy, a woman does.
A uterus does not transfer its ownership to a fetus because it is conceived. A uterus belongs to the woman. It always belongs to the woman. The placenta, is an organ belonging to the woman and acts between the fetus and the woman. The umbilical cord belongs to the woman as a means to support the fetus. There is nothing here viable to the idea a fetus has an autonomous right to dominate the ownership of the woman's body.
A constitutional amendment criminalizing abortion as a means to personhood is not based in reality and lends itself to act in ways that separates a woman's body from her habeas corpus. Did I make that clear?
A woman has habeas corpus. When a constitutional amendment removes her body away from her for the purpose of birthing a fetus, it acts against the writ of the USA Constitution.
A woman has habeas corpus that cannot be removed to the contrived right of a fetus. The fetus has no right to habeas corpus until it is autonomous in its ability to live on its own. Up to that point, the woman has control over her body. It is very simple.
...Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (click here) the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance,
Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,
Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,
Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity,
Bearing in mind that the need to extend particular care to the child has been stated in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1924 and in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly on 20 November 1959 and recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in particular in articles 23 and 24), in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (in particular in article 10) and in the statutes and relevant instruments of specialized agencies and international organizations concerned with the welfare of children,
Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth",...
There are universal understandings a child is conceived to be part of a family, not a matter of an autonomous citizen of personhood. The entire mess of a USA Constitutional amendment removes the 'identity' of child as partnered with parent(s). It is simply "W"rong and a political ideology. It is not remotely recognized as a viable option of a society to demand for a woman to choose pregnancy over not. It is ultimately the mother's option to continue a pregnancy.
Even the dynamics of unwanted pregnancy leading to unwanted children is socially devastating. Who would ever want a child to be born into circumstances where they are unwanted? That is not a good start and what occurs when parenthood is not in their future, but, simply a life of a child becoming an adult in an institutionalized setting? The entire dynamic is anti-social. There is nothing like a childhood abandoned at birth.
Don't tell me all children are adopted. That is a lie. That is a lie in the year 2012 and there is still abortion. It is a completely bizarre concept, political ideology and a cruel option for the USA.
There are universal understandings a child is conceived to be part of a family, not a matter of an autonomous citizen of personhood. The entire mess of a USA Constitutional amendment removes the 'identity' of child as partnered with parent(s). It is simply "W"rong and a political ideology. It is not remotely recognized as a viable option of a society to demand for a woman to choose pregnancy over not. It is ultimately the mother's option to continue a pregnancy.
Even the dynamics of unwanted pregnancy leading to unwanted children is socially devastating. Who would ever want a child to be born into circumstances where they are unwanted? That is not a good start and what occurs when parenthood is not in their future, but, simply a life of a child becoming an adult in an institutionalized setting? The entire dynamic is anti-social. There is nothing like a childhood abandoned at birth.
Don't tell me all children are adopted. That is a lie. That is a lie in the year 2012 and there is still abortion. It is a completely bizarre concept, political ideology and a cruel option for the USA.
