Well, I could see a problem in that abortion could never be allowed in any circumstance. For instance, if someone had a tubal pregnancy or heart problem that could lead to heart failure.
They wouldn't be allowed to get an abortion to save their life. Because if you treat both the fetus and the woman as completely equal you can't kill someone just to save your life. Of course, laws can be adjusted to make accommodations for such things while still restricting abortion in some cases. Also, this goes for everyone please try to keep it to one response. It is hard to have a conversation when there are so many things to respond to all at once.
The following is just few unintended consequences:
Personhood measures would provoke many years of legal battles in legislatures and courts, ensnaring women and their partners and doctors in expensive, time-consuming, and potentially liberty-infringing civil or criminal proceedings.
Personhood would outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, terminally deformed fetuses, and danger to the woman's health. It would prohibit doctors from performing abortions and perhaps even if the life of the woman is in jeopardy. These restrictions endanger the lives and health of many women.
By granting the embryo equal protection of the laws, the state would be forced to deny the same to the woman.
Personhood laws would allow the government to infringe upon one of citizens’ most fundamental rights, the right to privacy free from governmental intrusion.
By the new definition, a miscarriage is essentially an unexplained death of a “person”. Must the state then issue a death certificate, investigate every pregnancy loss, and consider the womb a crime scene or require a coroner’s report?
The word “person” appears over tens of thousands of times in Federal, State, and local the laws. All stages of development from conception to birth will be apply to all said laws.
The use of certain contraceptives will be outlawed. Birth control pills, intrauterine devices (IUD’s), and the morning after pill work by preventing fertilization from occurring but, theoretically, may occasionally prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. Because personhood groups believe that every stage of development is legally a person from the moment of fertilization, these methods of birth control would not be allowed.
Personhood proposals allow for much greater government interference in very personal healthcare decisions for women and their families. If fully enforced, they would lead to severe legal penalties for intentionally harming a zygote, embryo, or fetus, even in the event of life-threatening pregnancy complications. It would outlaw all elective abortions, forcing pregnant women to give birth against their own judgment, and it would encourage dangerous illegal abortions.
Pregnant women will become a separate class, less protected by law than men or non-pregnant women. Government officials might be obliged, pressured, or inspired to investigate or prosecute any miscarriage deemed suspicious. A woman suspected of causing a miscarriage could be subject to criminal prosecution, as could others suspected of helping her.
The Constitution instructs us to carry out a census every 10 years. Must we then count all millions of embryo “persons” in frozen storage in IVF labs throughout the U.S.? Granting personhood to an embryo could potentially result in questioning census results.
Since both Federal and State Tax Codes will be affected. If you have a woman who might experience two, three, four miscarriages in a year, can she claim those unborn people on her taxes?
Organizations who are storage facilities for embryos - have had system failures resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of embryos (aka “persons”). Will these loses be considered an act of negligent homicide - and those in charge sentenced as murderous felons?
Okay, I’m getting finger fatigue. I’ll post more later. There’s probably another dozen or so more relevant issues involved.
