View Single Post
  #86  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:33 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Again, I read the law. The sticking points arise from the law going to great lengths to declare that as soon as an embryo has a detectable heartbeat, it is a "natural person" and has the right to Equal Protection as guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment. It even quotes the Fourteenth to make this very clear.Yet at the same time, the law denies equal protection to embryos/fetuses/unborn that were conceived as a result of rape or incest. So on the one hand, you have embryos who are entitled to a form of child support and who count as dependents for state income tax deductions, yet on the other hand, you have embryos ("natural persons") who are denied equal protection due to circumstances beyond their--and in the case of rapes, the women's--control.

I also find it interesting that the law determines that personhood begins when a heartbeat is detectable, not when the heart actually begins to beat. That, of course, is a practical matter. Yet if the heartbeat is used as the determination of personhood, it would make sense to declare that natural personhood even earlier, at 3 weeks + 1 day. The issue of personhood is complex. The law both tries to simplify it and cover it completely and fails at both, as it was bound to do.
Not quite accurate. If you re-read the law, it defines all unborn children/fetuses/embryos as "natural persons" and as part of Georgia law bestows the protections of the 14th amendment on them. It states that medical science has progressed since Roe and Casey that unborn children are "living persons" perhaps foreshadowing an eventual argument to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.

But Georgia is bound by federal case law, most importantly Roe, and cannot take the logical conclusion of its personhood argument and say: no abortions. So it enacts a lesser scheme that it will argue in court complies with Roe and Casey. No abortions after a detectable heartbeat at all except for those listed reasons, and no abortions from heartbeat detection until 20 weeks except for rape and incest.

Nothing says that statutes have to be internally consistent. I don't see anything terribly wrong with a state, for example, granting personhood from the moment of fertilization yet also recognizing a woman's right to choose and stating that abortion is still legal up to 36 weeks for any reason. It is not logically consistent, but it doesn't need to be; it can be a recognition of competing values.