Zaphod for President

Chairman Spooner raises an excellent point; Federal courts will continue to mediate issues between the states, and this will inevitably force the issue of abortion back to the Roe-v-Wade issuing Supreme Court.

Or can proper legislation legitimize jurisdictions of states, and eliminate the need for this interference?

If I were to travel to the Great State of Nevada, I could gamble away my life savings, or more likely, offer it to various whores for their companionship. Both are perfectly legal in Nevada. Once I return home to Florida, I am still free to gamble, but no longer allowed to buy sex. I am under the jurisdiction of whatever territory I find myself in; if I were to travel to China, I would be subject to all applicable Chinese laws.

The Mississippi-New York hypothetical posed by Spooner clouds the issue of jurisdiction. For example, is the fetus the property of Mrs. X, currently in New York jurisdiction, or is the fetus a de-facto citizen of Mississippi, contingent on conception, and entitled to life, liberty and property of its own?

Consider this law: According to the Washington Post:

The Senate voted yesterday [July 26, ‘06] to make it a crime to take a pregnant minor to another state to obtain an abortion without her parents’ knowledge […] The bill would help about three dozen states enforce laws that require minors to notify or obtain the consent of their parents before having an abortion. It would bar people — including clergy members and grandparents — from helping a girl cross state lines to avoid parental-involvement laws. Violations could result in a year in prison.

This particular law protects the jurisdiction of the state according to the residency of the mother. In other words, if the child lives in a “pro-life” state, they are subject to the jurisdiction of that state- they must give parents notification of an abortion, and are disallowed any mischievous road trips to “pro-choice” paradises.

However, it would seem to me that a residency-based jurisdiction will quickly be usurped. For example, surely Mrs. X and her new New York mate will take residency together in New York, thus making Mrs. X a bonafide New Yorker, and exempt from Mississippi law.

A better solution for a pro-life state: a law that defines all living fetuses as living citizens, protected from the moment of conception. In other words, if a woman is pro-choice, she had best keep her legs closed in Mississippi. Back to Mrs. X- she failed to heed this advice, became pregnant, and at some point either took a pregnancy test, or better still, saw a doctor with her husband to check up on the baby.

Mr. X now has evidence; either a pregnancy test, or more solid, an ultrasound from a doctor. His baby is now a citizen, just like any other. To clearly demonstrate this, the State of Mississippi might issue a “pre-life certificate” to the expecting parents. If Mrs. X then transports the minor to New York, presumably still in utero, and then murders it, it is no different legally than if I were to murder a random child walking the streets of Mississippi while on a crack-fueled road trip, even though I take residency in Florida.

However, this is still an imperfect solution. For example, if a pregnant woman from a pro-choice state happens to drive through Mississippi, and then later decides to get an abortion, is the fetus a citizen of Mississippi, or property of a New Yorker? Does fetal naturalization occur the moment the fetus enters the territory? What if a woman to travels to Mississippi, but does not yet know that she is pregnant?

Perhaps Mississippi might expand the law, so that if either parent is a citizen of Mississippi, the child is a citizen at conception; fetuses merely passing-through do not qualify. Now for the inevitable: a mother in New York, with a state law protecting her right to an abortion, conceives with a Mississippi man, protecting his offspring as living from conception. Which state takes jurisdiction now?

Here we are forced to turn back the Federal government for mediation, however, I think an obvious and fair solution presents itself: jurisdiction is dependent on the location of conception. If the woman came to Mississippi, she forfeited her right to an abortion. If the man traveled to New York, he forfeited his progeny’s citizenship.

Now for the fun: proving she was pregnant. Even better: proving she conceived during that weekend visit to Mississippi. Here we crash up against the limitations of any legal system.

So perhaps a moral system can fill the void. Perhaps those of us, like myself, who oppose abortion, can limit our sex to people whom agree with our position. In this way I am able to protect the inevitable citizenship of my progeny, without depriving my mate of the right, and responsibility, of her freedom of choice.

Hungry for more?

• Philosophy