How Is Abortion a Right?

[Ethereal]

It's not even in the bill of rights, so how can it be a right?

[Beevee]

Is birth in the bill of rights or is it the prerogative of two people of opposite gender to create it?

[Ethereal]

Is birth in the bill of rights or is it the prerogative of two people of opposite gender to create it?

You tell me.

[Common Sense]

A right? I don't know. A lot of things are specifically mentioned as rights in the bill of rights. Is it your right to use a table saw? To wear a watch? To get plastic surgery?

I do know it has been deemed legal by the supreme court.

Frankly I don't love abortion debates though. Emotion often clouds rational dialogue.

[Ethereal]

I don't know.

Noted.

[Chris]

A right? I don't know. A lot of things are specifically mentioned as rights in the bill of rights. Is it your right to use a table saw? To wear a watch? To get plastic surgery?

I do know it has been deemed legal by the supreme court.

Frankly I don't love abortion debates though. Emotion often clouds rational dialogue.


Legal positivism isn't rational.

[Common Sense]

Noted.
That's pretty dishonest of you to exclude the rest of my post.

[IMPress Polly]

Ethereal wrote:
It's not even in the bill of rights, so how can it be a right?

It's called the right to privacy, my friend. The Supreme Court has long since determined privacy to be an implied constitutional right. I would also go further and suggest that it SHOULD be considered a protected right under the equal protection clause as well.

[Ethereal]

That's pretty dishonest of you to exclude the rest of my post.
I don't see why. The rest of your post does not change the fact that you do not know why abortion is a right, does it?

[Ethereal]

It's called the right to privacy, my friend. The Supreme Court has long since determined privacy to be an implied constitutional right. I would also go further and suggest that it SHOULD be considered a protected right under the equal protection clause as well.

Ah, so it's implied. Noted.

[Common Sense]

I don't see why. The rest of your post does not change the fact that you do not know why abortion is a right, does it?
It's dishonest. You know it is.

[IMPress Polly]

Ethereal wrote:
Ah, so it's implied. Noted.

That's not simply my opinion, but the Supreme Court's ruling on the subject in 1973. My position goes further than the Supreme Court did, contending that it should also be considered protected under the equal protection clause.

[Standing Wolf]

Ah, so it's implied. Noted.

The courts have found a right to privacy inherent in at least four sections of the Bill of Rights - the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth. Don't forget, also, that the Ninth makes it clear that the BOR is not a complete list.

[Ethereal]

It's dishonest. You know it is.
So when you said "I don't know", was that just a rhetorical statement?

[Ethereal]

That's not simply my opinion, but the Supreme Court's ruling on the subject in 1973. My position goes further than the Supreme Court did, contending that it should also be considered protected under the equal protection clause.
Implied, supreme court. Excellent.

[Ethereal]

The courts have found a right to privacy inherent in at least four sections of the Bill of Rights - the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth. Don't forget, also, that the Ninth makes it clear that the BOR is not a complete list.
You have nothing to worry about with this thread.

[Chris]

Ah, so it's implied. Noted.

Penumbral, found in the shadows, lurking. Apparently a right to make personal decisions.

But Blackburn counterbalanced that with the unborn's interest in life, and the state's interest in protecting life.

Then he, oddly, opined that that varies with time and viability, the latter not an argument about human life but personhood.

[IMPress Polly]

And these (Ethereal, Chris) are our libertarians! :laugh:

PF is such a joke.

[Common Sense]

So when you said "I don't know", was that just a rhetorical statement?
You used it as an attempt to insult me. "Noted"

It's in bad faith. I was trying to answer your question honestly and without malice. I wasn't expecting an insult in return.

[Chris]

The courts have found a right to privacy inherent in at least four sections of the Bill of Rights - the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth. Don't forget, also, that the Ninth makes it clear that the BOR is not a complete list.

A right to privacy in general, true, but Roe v Wade found it penumbrally only the the shado of the 14th's due process clause, and only temporary, during the first trimester, where it protected a woman and her doctor to make the call.

[Ethereal]

And these (Ethereal, Chris) are our libertarians! :laugh:

PF is such a joke.

The point of this thread evades you.

[Ethereal]

You used it as an attempt to insult me. "Noted"

It's in bad faith. I was trying to answer your question honestly and without malice. I wasn't expecting an insult in return.

I wasn't insulting you. I was taking note of your position. You just took it the wrong way.

[Chris]

You used it as an attempt to insult me. "Noted"

It's in bad faith. I was trying to answer your question honestly and without malice. I wasn't expecting an insult in return.

I didn't read it that way. He just highlighted you didn't know.

[Common Sense]

I didn't read it that way. He just highlighted you didn't know.

OK. I did read it that way because it was clearly a dig.

[Ethereal]

Don't take it personally, CS: he treats everyone who isn't a Trump backer the same way; yours truly probably most of all. It's really not possible to have a good-faith dialogue with Ethereal. I've tried many times. Never happens. The only reason I even replied on this thread really was for the benefit of other readers. Admittedly, I was kinda talking past Ethereal. I knew he'd reject whatever I said just because I'm the one who said it in advance. I just don't want anyone else to buy his $#@! without the full picture.
Wow. That time of the month or something?

[Chris]

Don't take it personally, CS: he treats everyone who isn't a Trump backer the same way; yours truly probably most of all. It's really not possible to have a good-faith dialogue with Ethereal. I've tried many times. Never happens. The only reason I even replied on this thread really was for the benefit of other readers. Admittedly, I was kinda talking past Ethereal. I knew he'd reject whatever I said just because I'm the one who said it in advance.


Polly, you very often quote only parts of what others post, and leave out the link. According to CS, whom you defend, you are being dishonest. I think you and CS need to get togther and figure that out.

[Common Sense]

Don't take it personally, CS: he treats everyone who isn't a Trump backer the same way; yours truly probably most of all. It's really not possible to have a good-faith dialogue with Ethereal. I've tried many times. Never happens. The only reason I even replied on this thread really was for the benefit of other readers. Admittedly, I was kinda talking past Ethereal. I knew he'd reject whatever I said just because I'm the one who said it in advance. I just don't want anyone else to buy his shit without the full picture.

I have on occasion. I'm having a pretty reasoned debate with him over gun control.

You do have a point with regards to libertarians and a case for hypocrisy.

[Ethereal]

OK. I did read it that way because it was clearly a dig.
It was not a dig. Trust me, when I take a dig at you, you will know it.

[nic34]

A stupid question used to divide people.

[Chris]

OK. I did read it that way because it was clearly a dig.

I didn't read it that way.

I did read your calling Eth dishonest as an insult. No excuse for that.

[Ethereal]

I have on occasion. I'm having a pretty reasoned debate with him over gun control.

You do have a point with regards to libertarians and a case for hypocrisy.

She does not have a point. I have not taken a position on whether or not abortion is a right. I merely asked a question in an attempt to demonstrate a point.

[IMPress Polly]

Ethereal wrote:
Wow. That time of the month or something?

Ah, I deleted it before your reply was even posted. I decided best not to rock the boat too much. Too late, I guess. Oh well.

Anyway, the sexist attitude you display in this remark does seem thematically fitting for someone opposed to female bodily autonomy.

[Chris]

A stupid question used to divide people.

Indeed, abortion divides a unique living human being from life itself.

[Common Sense]

It was not a dig. Trust me, when I take a dig at you, you will know it.

Then what was your point? To simply note that I didn't know if it was a right or not?

Of course...that makes sense.

[Ethereal]

A stupid question used to divide people.
Why is it a stupid question?

[Chris]

Ah, I deleted it before your reply was even posted. I decided best not to rock the boat too much. Too late, I guess. Oh well.

Anyway, the sexist attitude you display in this remark does seem thematically fitting for someone opposed to female bodily autonomy.



The unborn baby isn't your body and we're all dependent on each other.

[Common Sense]

She does not have a point. I have not taken a position on whether or not abortion is a right. I merely asked a question in an attempt to demonstrate a point.
...and that point is?

Out of curiosity, do you support a woman's right to choose abortion?

[Ethereal]

Ah, I deleted it before your reply was even posted. I decided best not to rock the boat too much. Too late, I guess. Oh well.

If you're experiencing mood swings, then take some Midol.


Anyway, the sexist attitude you display in this remark does seem thematically fitting for someone opposed to female bodily autonomy.

I'm not too worried about it. I know plenty of females who are comfortable with their femininity and all that comes with it.

[Common Sense]

If you're experiencing mood swings, then take some Midol.



I'm not too worried about it. I know plenty of females who are comfortable with their femininity and all that comes with it.
Seriously?

[Ethereal]

Then what was your point? To simply note that I didn't know if it was a right or not?

Of course...that makes sense.

Yes, that was my point. I think it says something about how liberals conceive of rights generally. But I didn't want to get to the heart of the matter just yet. I'd like to get some more opinions first.

[Ethereal]

...and that point is?

In due time.


Out of curiosity, do you support a woman's right to choose abortion?

Generally speaking, yes.

[nic34]

Why is it a stupid question?

Because it's only used at election time or by religious zealots to divide Americans against themselves.

[Chris]

Don't take it personally, CS: he treats everyone who isn't a Trump backer the same way; yours truly probably most of all. It's really not possible to have a good-faith dialogue with Ethereal. I've tried many times. Never happens. The only reason I even replied on this thread really was for the benefit of other readers. Admittedly, I was kinda talking past Ethereal. I knew he'd reject whatever I said just because I'm the one who said it in advance.


...Frankly I don't love abortion debates though. Emotion often clouds rational dialogue.

Indeed.

Sort of like discussing race.

[Ethereal]

Seriously?
She's acting like a bitch towards me. I've made it clear in the past, I will treat other posters the way they treat me.

[Ethereal]

Because it's only used at election time or by religious zealots to divide Americans against themselves.
Is it election time? Am I religious zealot?

[Common Sense]

Indeed.

Sort of like discussing race.

Similar. But I don't recall calling anyone an evil murdering baby killer in any discussions about race.

[Chris]

Because it's only used at election time or by religious zealots to divide Americans against themselves.

Eth is neither. I'm neither. It does seem to rile the left emotionally though.

[IMPress Polly]

Ethereal wrote:
I'm not too worried about it. I know plenty of females who are comfortable with their femininity and all that comes with it.

I see. So if I were to reply to you in a logically analogous way and say that you were arguing with me because your body has too much testosterone content to allow for self-control or that you just had a small dick, you wouldn't object then? You'd feel that I was complimenting your gender and not disparaging it?


She's acting like a bitch towards me. I've made it clear in the past, I will treat other posters the way they treat me.

You challenge my rights, you bring out the bitch in me, sorry. :tongue:

Don't want a fight? Don't pick one!

[Common Sense]

She's acting like a bitch towards me. I've made it clear in the past, I will treat other posters the way they treat me.

But you do realize it degrades all women when you say asinine things like that, right?

[Chris]

Similar. But I don't recall calling anyone an evil murdering baby killer in any discussions about race.

Similar in the left arguing emotionally rather than rationally.

[Common Sense]

Eth is neither. I'm neither. It does seem to rile the left emotionally though.

Abortion riles the left emotionally???

[Ethereal]

I see. So if I were to reply to you in a logically analogous way and say that you were arguing with me because your body has too much testosterone content to allow for self-control or that you just had a small dick, you wouldn't object then? You'd feel that I was complimenting your gender and not disparaging it?
I would just assume you disliked me personally and not males in general. I'm able to do that because I'm not super hung up on being a male like you are with being a female.

[Common Sense]

Similar in the left arguing emotionally rather than rationally.

So you admit you can't discuss abortion rationally?

[Ethereal]

But you do realize it degrades all women when you say asinine things like that, right?
No it doesn't. Women have periods and they get moody sometimes. Everyone, including women, knows this.

[Common Sense]

I would just assume you disliked me personally and not males in general. I'm able to do that because I'm not super hung up being a male like you are with being a female.
Sorry, I just glossed over that. All I saw was "I'm not super hung...".


I kid, I kid...

[Chris]

Abortion riles the left emotionally???

Discussion sure does seem to do that.


So you admit you can't discuss abortion rationally?

I'm trying to. Not sure how you arrived at that twisted interpretation of what I posted. You seem upset about a perceived insult and insulted because of it. So did Polly.

[Common Sense]

No it doesn't. Women have periods and they get moody sometimes. Everyone, including women, knows this.
It actually does though. What you are implying is that any time a woman says something that you find disagreeable or argumentative, it's not her rationality...it's her menstrual cycle.

There is a long history of labeling women who argue with men as "being on their period". Or being "hysterical".

[Ethereal]

Sorry, I just glossed over that. All I saw was "I'm not super hung...".


I kid, I kid...

It's true. I'm not super hung. And I'm okay with that. Polly should learn to be okay with her periods and the moodiness they generally entail.

[IMPress Polly]

Ethereal wrote:
I would just assume you disliked me personally and not males in general. I'm able to do that because I'm not super hung up on being a male like you are with being a female.

You'd be very naive then. :laugh:

Seriously, you know you're just being disingenuous now.

[Chris]

Discussion has been derailed. Congratulations!!

[Ethereal]

It actually does though. What you are implying is that any time a woman says something that you find disagreeable or argumentative, it's not her rationality...it's her menstrual cycle.

There is a long history of labeling women who argue with men as "being on their period". Or being "hysterical".

It's not necessarily that. But it could be that. And often times, it is. But I still love women in spite of it. Heck, I still like Polly even if she's acting bitchy right now. I kind of like it.

[Ethereal]

You'd be very naive then. :laugh:

Seriously, you know you're just being disingenuous now.

I honestly don't care if people make fun of me for being a male or being white or whatever. It doesn't bother me. I learned to laugh at myself a long time ago. You should do the same.

[Ethereal]

Discussion has been derailed. Congratulations!!
Well, periods do have some relevance to abortions.

[Common Sense]

Discussion sure does seem to do that.



I'm trying to. Not sure how you arrived at that twisted interpretation of what I posted. You seem upset about a perceived insult and insulted because of it. So did Polly.

Sorry, it was sort of insulting, but I was merely expanding on your point or taking it to a conclusion. You allege that some on the left can't discuss race without emotion (it seemed to be directed at me) and I was contrasting that with the same argument with regards to people who oppose abortion and arguments about abortion.

I'm not upset. I'm just pointing out that we both may let emotion get in the way. I did imply that the balance did swing towards the abortion argument...because I think it does. I've debating the issue with many here and have often encountered wildly emotional arguments.

[Common Sense]

It's true. I'm not super hung.

Noted.



;)

[Ethereal]

Sorry, it was sort of insulting, but I was merely expanding on your point or taking it to a conclusion. You allege that some on the left can't discuss race without emotion (it seemed to be directed at me) and I was contrasting that with the same argument with regards to people who oppose abortion and arguments about abortion.

I'm not upset. I'm just pointing out that we both may let emotion get in the way. I did imply that the balance did swing towards the abortion argument...because I think it does. I've debating the issue with many here and have often encountered wildly emotional arguments.

It wasn't intended as an insult. If I want to insult you, then I will insult you, as I've just demonstrated with our mutual friend Polly. I merely took note of your position because I found it instructive.

[Ethereal]

Noted.



;)

It's okay. It doesn't bother me. And it doesn't bother the ladies either. Their satisfaction is my guarantee.

:smiley:

[Common Sense]

It wasn't intended as an insult. If I want to insult you, then I will just insult you, as I've just demonstrated with our mutual friend Polly. I merely took note of your position because I found it instructive.

That was in regards to something Chris said.

[Mister D]

Sorry, it was sort of insulting, but I was merely expanding on your point or taking it to a conclusion. You allege that some on the left can't discuss race without emotion (it seemed to be directed at me) and I was contrasting that with the same argument with regards to people who oppose abortion and arguments about abortion.

I'm not upset. I'm just pointing out that we both may let emotion get in the way. I did imply that the balance did swing towards the abortion argument...because I think it does. I've debating the issue with many here and have often encountered wildly emotional arguments.
Oddly enough, I've encountered them with race. :afro:

[Ethereal]

Girls like it when you stand up to them. Women despise nothing more than a milquetoast.

[Common Sense]

So, anywhoo...what was the secret point? I'm waiting for an M. Night Shayamalan twist.

[Ethereal]

So, anywhoo...what was the secret point? I'm waiting for an M. Night Shayamalan twist.
I'd like to get a few actual answers to the question first. Polly made an appeal to legal positivism, which is about as intellectually bankrupt as it gets. But I'm willing to accept that for the purposes of my argument. Still, I'd like to see maybe one or two more answers before we delve into the heart of the matter.

[Mister D]

Girls like it when you stand up to them. Women despise nothing more than a milquetoast.
I treat Polly just like a man. From what I can tell she doesn't appreciate that which is kind of odd but whatever.

[The Xl]

It's a right, but certainly not more a right than the clearly stated right to bear arms without infringement is.

[Mister D]

It's a right, but certainly not more a right than the clearly stated right to bear arms without infringement is.
Ouch

[IMPress Polly]

The XL wrote:
It's a right, but certainly not more a right than the clearly stated right to bear arms without infringement is.

Though I'm not as much of an all-around individualist as you seem to be (hence my economic views, for instance), I am admittedly I think coming around to a more gun-friendly outlook than I used to have.

[Mister D]

Though I'm not as much of an all-around individualist as you seem to be (hence my economic views, for instance), I am admittedly I think coming around to a more gun-friendly outlook than I used to have.
You mean coherent not gun-friendly.

[Ethereal]

I treat Polly just like a man. From what I can tell she doesn't appreciate that which is kind of odd but whatever.
lol

[Chris]

Sorry, it was sort of insulting, but I was merely expanding on your point or taking it to a conclusion. You allege that some on the left can't discuss race without emotion (it seemed to be directed at me) and I was contrasting that with the same argument with regards to people who oppose abortion and arguments about abortion.

I'm not upset. I'm just pointing out that we both may let emotion get in the way. I did imply that the balance did swing towards the abortion argument...because I think it does. I've debating the issue with many here and have often encountered wildly emotional arguments.


I didn't take it as insulting.

You perceived insult when no one else did. That's an emotional reaction. You seem more interested in discussing that than abortion.

Same with Polly.

[Ethereal]

It's a right, but certainly not more a right than the clearly stated right to bear arms without infringement is.
I believe the cat has been let out of the proverbial bag.

[The Xl]

Though I'm not as much of an all-around individualist as you seem to be (hence my economic views, for instance), I am admittedly I think coming around to a more gun-friendly outlook than I used to have.
While we may have different views, in many instances the motivations for my conclusions may not be what they seem. Much of what I believe I genuinely feel would work to benefit of many of the people that you seek to protect, and gun rights is definitely one of those issues. Gun control actually hurts the poor and/or minority neighborhoods because the good people are stripped of their means to protect themselves.

[Chris]

It's a right, but certainly not more a right than the clearly stated right to bear arms without infringement is.

So is life a right, naturally.

[The Xl]

So is life a right, naturally.

A life that cannot sustain itself has an inherent right to live? Let alone the fact that said life is barely a step up from an errant cumshot, and far lower a life that the animals killed for your consumption every day. Don't think so, nope.

[Mister D]

A life that cannot sustain itself has an inherent right to live? Let alone the fact that said life is barely a step up from an errant cumshot, and far lower a life that the animals killed for your consumption every day. Don't think so, nope.
You mean the young, handicapped and elderly?

[Chris]

A life that cannot sustain itself has an inherent right to live? Let alone the fact that said life is barely a step up from an errant cumshot, and far lower a life that the animals killed for your consumption every day. Don't think so, nope.

Yes. How long after being born is a baby unable to sustain itself? The sick and infirm? The aged? How can that be criteria?

No, life begins at conception, not release of sperm.

Lower life? It's not a cow, not a frog, it's a human being genetically.

[The Xl]

You mean the young, handicapped and elderly?

Are they literally parasitically tied at the hip?

[Chris]

Are they literally parasitically tied at the hip?

Yes.

Parasite, nice dehumanization.

[The Xl]

Yes. How long after being born is a baby unable to sustain itself? The sick and infirm? The aged? How can that be criteria?

No, life begins at conception, not release of sperm.

Lower life? It's not a cow, not a frog, it's a human being genetically.

It's a lower life at that stage, absolutely. Isn't as intelligent, isn't capable of that level of suffering, isn't as aware, by literally every metric that advanced life is defined, it's lower than those animals.

[The Xl]

Yes.

No, the young, elderly, and disabled are not "literally" tied at the hip.

[Ethereal]

While we may have different views, in many instances the motivations for my conclusions may not be what they seem. Much of what I believe I genuinely feel would work to benefit of many of the people that you seek to protect, and gun rights is definitely one of those issues. Gun control actually hurts the poor and/or minority neighborhoods because the good people are stripped of their means to protect themselves.

XL got dat game...

[Mister D]

Are they literally parasitically tied at the hip?
Well, yes, in so far as they cannot take care of themselves and require assistance from other human beings. Ans that' snot for 9 months. It's often for a lifetime. I don't want to live in a society that discards the weak and infirm. Do you?

The truth is that your average person is simply too lazy and/or self-centered to appreciate the ethical implications of abortion.

[Mister D]

Yes.

Parasite, nice dehumanization.
This is the way people speak. It doesn't bode well.

[Ethereal]

Are they literally parasitically tied at the hip?
Parasite has a specific biological designation. Offspring do not meet the criteria.

[The Xl]

Parasite has a specific biological designation. Offspring do not meet the criteria.
Pseudo parasitically then. They biologically can't function without the mother.

[Mister D]

Parasite has a specific biological designation. Offspring do not meet the criteria.
That sort of rhetoric also has historical precedent.

[Chris]

Pseudo parasitically then. They biologically can't function without the mother.

We depend on each other for most everything. So that can't be an argument.


You're arguing personhood while others of us are arguing about a human life.

[The Xl]

Well, yes, in so far as they cannot take care of themselves and require assistance from other human beings. Ans that' snot for 9 months. It's often for a lifetime. I don't want to live in a society that discards the weak and infirm. Do you?

The truth is that your average person is simply too lazy and/or self-centered to appreciate the ethical implications of abortion.

I don't really like abortion, am not a fan of it whatsoever, but I don't believe that it's illegal or unconstitutional. And yes, I also feel that the suffering of what quite intelligent animals go through at human hands is a far bigger tragedy that what a glorified clump of cells go through.

[The Xl]

We depend on each other for most everything. So that can't be an argument.

Not tied at the hip literally, though.

[Mister D]

I don't really like abortion, am not a fan of it whatsoever, but I don't believe that it's illegal or unconstitutional. And yes, I also feel that the suffering of what quite intelligent animals go through at human hands is a far bigger tragedy that what a glorified clump of cells go through.
What don't you like about abortion?

[Ethereal]

Pseudo parasitically then. They biologically can't function without the mother.
That's true. But they are still human. That said, I'm generally not in favor of government restrictions on abortion. I don't think it actually solves the problem.

[Chris]

Not tied at the hip literally, though.

What's the real difference between an umbilical cord and life support tubes?

Again, you're looking for a convenient definition of personhood.

[The Xl]

Well, yes, in so far as they cannot take care of themselves and require assistance from other human beings. Ans that' snot for 9 months. It's often for a lifetime. I don't want to live in a society that discards the weak and infirm. Do you?

The truth is that your average person is simply too lazy and/or self-centered to appreciate the ethical implications of abortion.

I absolutely get that and I don't really like abortion, and despise lazy no good fucks who use abortion as a form of birth control. But I also roll my eyes at those who cry about a clump of cells that can barely feel anything, while not batting an eyelid at the fear and pain many intelligent and sophisticated creatures go through for their consumption, simply because one is "human" and the other is not, despite the fact that the former is barely through any of the developmental stages that would allow him or her to feel what the latter feels.

[Common Sense]

I don't agree with parasite. That's not scientifically accurate and the implications are ugly.

[Chris]

That's true. But they are still human. That said, I'm generally not in favor of government restrictions on abortion. I don't think it actually solves the problem.

I think the government should get out of it altogether and leave society to decide what it justifies and what it condemns.

[Mister D]

I absolutely get that and I don't really like abortion, and despite lazy no good $#@!s who use abortion as a form of birth control. But I also roll my eyes at those who cry about a clump of cells that can barely feel anything, while not batting an eyelid at the fear and pain many intelligent and sophisticated creates go through for their consumption, simply because one is "human" and the other is not, despite the fact that the form is barely through any of the developmental stages that would allow him or her to feel what the latter feels.
What specifically is it that you dislike about abortion?

[The Xl]

What don't you like about abortion?

I don't like killing or hurting things. I don't even like squashing bugs. I'm pretty soft like that. The only meat I eat is free range chicken, and even I'm not thrilled at doing that. So it's natural that I wouldn't like abortion.

[Mister D]

I don't like killing or hurting things. I don't even like squashing bugs. I'm pretty soft like that. The only meat I eat is free range chicken, and even I'm not thrilled at doing that. So it's natural that I wouldn't like abortion.
Am I correct to suggest that at it's core you think abortion is in fact immoral...even evil? Never mind rape victims and mothers who will die without it. That's a tiny minority.

[Chris]

Roe v Wade was right in one thing, you have the interests of the woman and her rights, the interests of the unborn and its rights, and the interests of the state to protect rights. There's no clear-cut moral answer here. If the pregnancy threatens the mother, in various ways, I can inderstand abortion, otherwise the rights of the unborn must prevail. My opinion. Society needs to work it out.

[IMPress Polly]

The XL wrote:
While we may have different views, in many instances the motivations for my conclusions may not be what they seem. Much of what I believe I genuinely feel would work to benefit of many of the people that you seek to protect, and gun rights is definitely one of those issues. Gun control actually hurts the poor and/or minority neighborhoods because the good people are stripped of their means to protect themselves.

It still very much seems to me that gun control works in principle when it comes to minimizing gun violence, but I'm starting to question whether any serious approach thereto, like we've seen in other First World countries, is actually viable here in the U.S., given the exponentially larger supply of guns that are already in circulation here than were at the time of the aforementioned restrictions in those other countries (Japan, Canada, Australia, etc.). That's traditionally seemed like a defeatist outlook to me, but right now it just seems like reality. It's a scary world out there. Lots and lots of really dangerous people already have guns.

I'm also frankly scared of the current administration and some of its supporters. You look at what happened in Charlottesville, for example! I think I'm coming to a place of understanding some of that paranoid fear that Obama opponents had when he was in office as a result. Feeling it myself now. I think that -- some fear of the current administration and its cronies -- is at least partially behind the major uptick we've seen in gun purchases in those heavily Democratic-leaning states of late, and especially among women. (More especially black women.) I've bought my first firearms as a result myself. It just makes me feel safer to have them. Even if they never actually protect me from anything, it's worth owning them just for that increased peace of mind to me.

We're seeing this upswing in women and people of color buying guns lately, and especially this last year. It's not that they oppose basic, reasonable forms of gun control, like expanded background checks. The vast majority of those groups still say they support those things; especially black women. But 69% of black women also describe gun ownership as a "necessity" now in those same surveys. I think that describes where I am on this issue too. That's the way I feel.

[Mister D]

Does she seriously believe black women are buying guns because of Donald Trump? What in the fuck...

[The Xl]

Am I correct to suggest that at it's core you think abortion is in fact immoral...even evil? Never mind rape victims and mothers who will die without it. That's a tiny minority.
I think late term abortion is illegal, not a fan of super early abortions, but I don't know if I'd call them evil. Much of what I'd consider evil and the severity of the evil would depend on the suffering in question. But evil and illegal aren't necessarily the same thing. I think a lot of stuff that is legal as evil.

[Captain Obvious]

Does she seriously believe black women are buying guns because of Donald Trump? What in the fuck...

Pretty sure that was Trump in saggy pants and a do rag holding up that liquor store.

[IMPress Polly]

Mister D wrote:
Does she seriously believe black women are buying guns because of Donald Trump? What in the $#@!...

In part, yes. I don't the ascendancy of white nationalist groups in this era is something that you just ignore if you're black. I also think it's partially heightened concern over police violence against black people. And domestic violence against women (which, incidentally, black women are the most likely group of all to experience, statistically speaking). And of course the usual just living in dangerous neighborhoods. All those things combined.

[Mister D]

I think late term abortion is illegal, not a fan of super early abortions, but I don't know if I'd call them evil. Much of what I'd consider evil and the severity of the evil would depend on the suffering in question. But evil and illegal aren't necessarily the same thing. I think a lot of stuff that is legal as evil.
Late term abortion is impossible to rationally defend but that's neither here nor there. What would you call it?Obviously, you think there is something wrong with abortion on some level.

[The Xl]

It still very much seems to me that gun control works in principle when it comes to minimizing gun violence, but I'm starting to question whether any serious approach thereto, like we've seen in other First World countries, is actually viable here in the U.S., given the exponentially larger supply of guns that are already in circulation here than were at the time of the aforementioned restrictions in those other countries (Japan, Canada, Australia, etc.). That's traditionally seemed like a defeatist outlook to me, but right now it just seems like reality. It's a scary world out there. Lots and lots of really dangerous people already have guns.

I'm also frankly scared of the current administration and some of its supporters. You look at what happened in Charlottesville, for example! I think I'm coming to a place of understanding some of that paranoid fear that Obama opponents had when he was in office as a result. Feeling it myself now. I think that -- some fear of the current administration and its cronies -- is at least partially behind the major uptick we've seen in gun purchases in those heavily Democratic-leaning states of late, and especially among women. (More especially black women.) I've bought my first firearms as a result myself. It just makes me feel safer to have them. Even if they never actually protect me from anything, it's worth owning them just for that increased peace of mind to me.

We're seeing this upswing in women and people of color buying guns lately, and especially this last year. It's not that they oppose basic, reasonable forms of gun control, like expanded background checks. The vast majority of those groups still say they support those things; especially black women. But 69% of black women also describe gun ownership as a "necessity" now in those same surveys. I think that describes where I am on this issue too. That's the way I feel.

Gun control only works if you have little to no guns in the country, and considering the proliferation of arms in the United States and Mexico, and the fact that our Constitution clearly permits the right to have a firearm, that isn't feasible.

Why do black women all of a sudden feel the urge to own a gun now?

[Chris]

It still very much seems to me that gun control works in principle when it comes to minimizing gun violence, but I'm starting to question whether any serious approach thereto, like we've seen in other First World countries, is actually viable here in the U.S., given the exponentially larger supply of guns that are already in circulation here than were at the time of the aforementioned restrictions in those other countries (Japan, Canada, Australia, etc.). That's traditionally seemed like a defeatist outlook to me, but right now it just seems like reality. It's a scary world out there. Lots and lots of really dangerous people already have guns.

I'm also frankly scared of the current administration and some of its supporters. You look at what happened in Charlottesville, for example! I think I'm coming to a place of understanding some of that paranoid fear that Obama opponents had when he was in office as a result. Feeling it myself now. I think that -- some fear of the current administration and its cronies -- is at least partially behind the major uptick we've seen in gun purchases in those heavily Democratic-leaning states of late, and especially among women. (More especially black women.) I've bought my first firearms as a result myself. It just makes me feel safer to have them. Even if they never actually protect me from anything, it's worth owning them just for that increased peace of mind to me.

We're seeing this upswing in women and people of color buying guns lately, and especially this last year. It's not that they oppose basic, reasonable forms of gun control, like expanded background checks. The vast majority of those groups still say they support those things; especially black women. But 69% of black women also describe gun ownership as a "necessity" now in those same surveys. I think that describes where I am on this issue too. That's the way I feel.



The problem isn't guns.

[Kalkin]

That's pretty dishonest of you to exclude the rest of my post.

He quoted the relevant part.

[The Xl]

In part, yes. I don't the ascendancy of white nationalist groups in this era is something that you just ignore if you're black. I also think it's partially heightened concern over police violence against black people. And domestic violence against women (which, incidentally, black women are the most likely group of all to experience, statistically speaking). And of course the usual just living in dangerous neighborhoods. All those things combined.

Local gangs and criminals are a far, far, far, far far...............................far, far, far, far bigger threat to the lives of black women than white nationalists. That's just a statistical fact.

[Chris]

Here's the relationship between gun control and violence:

https://i.snag.gy/srgxnA.jpg


Facts run very counter to fiction and wishful thinking and good intentions.

[Mister D]

In part, yes. I don't the ascendancy of white nationalist groups in this era is something that you just ignore if you're black. I also think it's partially heightened concern over police violence against black people. And domestic violence against women (which, incidentally, black women are the most likely group of all to experience, statistically speaking). And of course the usual just living in dangerous neighborhoods. All those things combined.
Polly, let me clue you in on a little something. Black women are buying guns to protect themselves from black men who commit a grossly disproportionate amount of violence overall and the vast majority of violence against black women. Yes, Polly, the greatest threat one faces in a black neighborhood is not the police or (LOL) Donald Trump. It's the brothuz. I'm happy black women are able to defend themselves. Unlike you, I'm quite satisfied without putting an absofuckinglutely preposterous ideological spin on it.

[Mister D]

Local gangs and criminals are a far, far, far, far far...............................far, far, far, far bigger threat to the lives of black women than white nationalists. That's just a statistical fact.
White nationalists who are capable of violence probably kill more whites than blacks anyway.

[Green Arrow]

Ethereal, alternative question. If the Bill of Rights was amended and erased, would we have no rights?

[Ethereal]

@Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870), alternative question. If the Bill of Rights was amended and erased, would we have no rights?
Of course not. Our rights are natural and inalienable.

[Chris]

The government doesn't grant us rights, we, or at least the founders, gave up certain rights and granted those powers to the government. You know, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and "We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[Green Arrow]

Of course not. Our rights are natural and inalienable.
So, then, what's it matter if abortion is in the BoR or not? What's it matter if the second is removed from the BoR?

[Common Sense]

Of course not. Our rights are natural and inalienable.
Who decides what a natural right is?

Is there a formula?

Could someone not say that freedom to abort is a natural right?

[Ethereal]

So, then, what's it matter if abortion is in the BoR or not? What's it matter if the second is removed from the BoR?
It doesn't matter. Just as it does not matter if the second is removed from the BoR.

[Chris]

So, then, what's it matter if abortion is in the BoR or not? What's it matter if the second is removed from the BoR?

Abortion wouldn't be in a bill of rights because it's not a natural, moral right of the people. The second wouldn't matter because we would still have the natural, moral right to self-defense. It's in the BoR because the founders kneww that the only protection against tyrannical government was an armed people.

[Ethereal]

Who decides what a natural right is?

Nobody. They are a product of reason.

[Green Arrow]

It doesn't matter. Just as it does not matter if the second is removed from the BoR.
Alright, I guess I missed your point then.

[Common Sense]

Nobody. They are a product of reason.
Certainly people can come to differing conclusions using reason.

[Ethereal]

Alright, I guess I missed your point then.
I'm using the same arguments that people were using to argue against the right of people to sell guns, except applied to abortion.

[Ethereal]

Certainly people can come to differing conclusions using reason.
If they arrive at differing conclusions, then there are only two possibilities. One of them is not using reason or there is more than one valid conclusion. What is true by definition is that reason will not yield an erroneous conclusion.

[Chris]

Who decides what a natural right is?

Is there a formula?

Could someone not say that freedom to abort is a natural right?

No one decides. If it was up to each person then we'd be faced with moral relativism which would lead to contradictions just as denying the right to self-defense leads to contradictions. When the founders, Jefferson atually, wrong "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," what they meant was these natural right were moral truths. Moral truths suffer no contradictions.

[Green Arrow]

I'm using the same arguments that people were using to argue against the right of people to sell guns, except applied to abortion.

Ah, I gotcha now. Cool, carry on then.

[Common Sense]

No one decides. If it was up to each person then we'd be faced with moral relativism which would lead to contradictions just as denying the right to self-defense leads to contradictions. When the founders, Jefferson atually, wrong "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," what they meant was these natural right were moral truths. Moral truths suffer no contradictions.
Fair enough, but then what specifically are these natural rights? Are they just Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? It's difficult to codify and if determined by reason alone, who's to judge what is reasonable?

I'm not trying to be contrary. It's just that I see a lot of ambiguity in these moral truths.

One could argue that moral truths can be contradictory. If life is a natural right, how would it deal with a moral dilemma like sacrificing one life to save many? The overcrowded lifeboat, Sofie's choice etc?...

[Ethereal]

Fair enough, but then what specifically are these natural rights? Are they just Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? It's difficult to codify and if determined by reason alone, who's to judge what is reasonable?

I'm not trying to be contrary. It's just that I see a lot of ambiguity in these moral truths.

One could argue that moral truths can be contradictory. If life is a natural right, how would it deal with a moral dilemma like sacrificing one life to save many? The overcrowded lifeboat, Sofie's choice etc?...

I think life and liberty pretty much covers it all. Pursuit of happiness was probably just a rhetorical flourish.

And we do not judge what is reasonable. Reason exists independently of our judgments.

[Chris]

Fair enough, but then what specifically are these natural rights? Are they just Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? It's difficult to codify and if determined by reason alone, who's to judge what is reasonable?

I'm not trying to be contrary. It's just that I see a lot of ambiguity in these moral truths.

One could argue that moral truths can be contradictory. If life is a natural right, how would it deal with a moral dilemma like sacrificing one life to save many? The overcrowded lifeboat, Sofie's choice etc?...


Sacrificing one's life for others' lives isn't all that contradictory.

Each of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, or property, as it was then more often expressed, are broud categories of rights. You have a right to feed, clothe and shelter yourself in order to live, and a right to self-defense of your life. To deny any of those as natural rights is to contradict life itself. Libertary has to do with rights of conseiences, and thought, and speech. To deny these is to contradcit who we are as reasoning beings. Porperty has to do with the rights of free association and contract and owning the fruits of your labor and being able to trade your property with others and all sorts of other rights that to deny is to contractict who we are as social beings. Rights are not seperate from who we are, they are attributes of who we are, and means of being who we are, and responsibilities we have as who we are.

Abortion denies all that we are. As does murder, theft, lying, and so on.

Codification has to do with positive law. Codified law should be based on natural, moral law. When the two are at odds it's the codification that's wrong. Example, slavery was one legal. Clearly slavery is a moral evil, the law was wrong.

[Common Sense]

I think life and liberty pretty much covers it all. Pursuit of happiness was probably just a rhetorical flourish.

And we do not judge what is reasonable. Reason exists independently of our judgments.
Those are pretty broad. Life is an inalienable right, yet the government can take it away. Liberty is even more vague. Liberty to do what? Whatever you wish so long as it doesn't infringe on others rights?

Again, how do you reconcile moral dilemmas that infringe on those rights?

[Common Sense]

Sacrificing one's life for others' lives isn't all that contradictory.

Each of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, or property, as it was then more often expressed, are broud categories of rights. You have a right to feed, clothe and shelter yourself in order to live, and a right to self-defense of your life. To deny any of those as natural rights is to contradict life itself. Libertary has to do with rights of conseiences, and thought, and speech. To deny these is to contradcit who we are as reasoning beings. Porperty has to do with the rights of free association and contract and owning the fruits of your labor and being able to trade your property with others and all sorts of other rights that to deny is to contractict who we are as social beings. Rights are not seperate from who we are, they are attributes of who we are, and means of being who we are, and responsibilities we have as who we are.

Abortion denies all that we are. As does murder, theft, lying, and so on.

Codification has to do with positive law. Codified law should be based on natural, moral law. When the two are at odds it's the codification that's wrong. Example, slavery was one legal. Clearly slavery is a moral evil, the law was wrong.

The dilemma isn't sacrificing one's life for others. It's taking a life to save others.

I appreciate the descriptions and the reasoning of natural rights.

I don't agree that abortion runs contrary to natural rights. It depends on what conclusions one comes to using reason. Certainly in a moral dilemma or in defence of one's rights, the taking of life is acceptable.

My only issue again is the vague nature and inevitability of contradictory interpretations of what constitutes a natural right. Certainly we are imperfect beings and prone to bias and will often come to different conclusions using our own reason. We all have a way of rationalizing and making compelling arguments to support our conclusions.

[Ethereal]

Those are pretty broad. Life is an inalienable right, yet the government can take it away. Liberty is even more vague. Liberty to do what? Whatever you wish so long as it doesn't infringe on others rights?

Again, how do you reconcile moral dilemmas that infringe on those rights?



...of Liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of it’s extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.
--Thomas Jefferson


The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
--Thomas Jefferson

Life and liberty essentially describes a state of peaceful coexistence.

[Chris]

The dilemma isn't sacrificing one's life for others. It's taking a life to save others.

I appreciate the descriptions and the reasoning of natural rights.

I don't agree that abortion runs contrary to natural rights. It depends on what conclusions one comes to using reason. Certainly in a moral dilemma or in defence of one's rights, the taking of life is acceptable.

My only issue again is the vague nature and inevitability of contradictory interpretations of what constitutes a natural right. Certainly we are imperfect beings and prone to bias and will often come to different conclusions using our own reason. We all have a way of rationalizing and making compelling arguments to support our conclusions.


Abortion takes a life. It's not contrary to who we are, living beings? As I said earlier even the court got it right that there's the mother and the baby's interests to consider. And as I said even earlier, you have to weight the mother's life, health and so on in making a moral choice. But if those aren't at stake then the unborn's life should take priority, not the convenience of getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy.

It's no more vague than positive laws it, and way easier to understand. It is argument based, so make reasonable, moral arguments.

[Chris]

Broad, vague, come on, it's a forum for discussion not a blog for definition. Walls of words are generally ignored and might get a that's nice.

[Common Sense]

Life and liberty essentially describes a state of peaceful coexistence.

So it certainly could be argued that gay marriage falls within ones natural rights.

[Chris]

So it certainly could be argued that gay marriage falls within ones natural rights.

Right of free association, contract, I would argue.


One thing I left out of what I said above was equality. Not equality that makes everyone one, but equality in the sense of rule of law or rights being universal. Rights apply to everyone. And your exercise of rights, because of that, cannot infringe on those equal rights of others.

I would go so far as to argue if two rights conflict, then one is likely not a right.

[Common Sense]

Abortion takes a life. It's not contrary to who we are, living beings? As I said earlier even the court got it right that there's the mother and the baby's interests to consider. And as I said even earlier, you have to weight the mother's life, health and so on in making a moral choice. But if those aren't at stake then the unborn's life should take priority, not the convenience of getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy.

It's no more vague than positive laws it, and way easier to understand. It is argument based, so make reasonable, moral arguments.
A zygote is not a baby. It has the potential to become one, but is not one. Calling it a person is where reason is going to clash again.

Abortions are not conducted for connivence, but rather for planning ones life. Pursuing ones liberty. I agree that at a certain point that foetus should be protected. That point is hotly contested.

[Common Sense]

Right of free association, contract, I would argue.


One thing I left out of what I said above was equality. Not equality that makes everyone one, but equality in the sense of rule of law or rights being universal. Rights apply to everyone. And your exercise of rights, because of that, cannot infringe on those equal rights of others.

I would go so far as to argue if two rights conflict, then one is likely not a right.

On that I would agree. Your rights end where they infringe on mine.

[Chris]

A zygote is not a baby. It has the potential to become one, but is not one. Calling it a person is where reason is going to clash again.

Abortions are not conducted for connivence, but rather for planning ones life. Pursuing ones liberty. I agree that at a certain point that foetus should be protected. That point is hotly contested.

A zygote is a stage in the development of a human being, just as old age is. Don't make such simple categorical errors.

When you say one, you can't thus mean a living human being, as it's that already, so you must mean a person, however you choose to define that. IOW, the contest is between medical science and political opinion.

You should plan before you have sex then.

[Common Sense]

A zygote is a stage in the development of a human being, just as old age is. Don't make such simple categorical errors.

When you say one, you can't thus mean a living human being, as it's that already, so you must mean a person, however you choose to define that. IOW, the contest is between medical science and political opinion.

You should plan before you have sex then.

I agree that abortion shouldn't be used lightly. It rarely is.

A zygote is again a potential person. It's not a sentient being. It hasn't suffered an ailment or genetic mistake that prevents it from being sentient. It is a fertilized egg.

http://images.wisegeek.com/zygote.jpg

This is not a person.

With regards to science, here we are again where reason has brought two conflicting conclusions.

Personally I'm not a fan of abortion, but it is a reality. But self abortion is seen in the animal kingdom and is simply an aspect of reproduction.

[Chris]

I agree that abortion shouldn't be used lightly. It rarely is.

A zygote is again a potential person. It's not a sentient being. It hasn't suffered an ailment or genetic mistake that prevents it from being sentient. It is a fertilized egg.

http://images.wisegeek.com/zygote.jpg

This is not a person.

With regards to science, here we are again where reason has brought two conflicting conclusions.

Personally I'm not a fan of abortion, but it is a reality. But self abortion is seen in the animal kingdom and is simply an aspect of reproduction.



Well, now we're in agreement. You are arguing the typical progressive personhood argument, while I am arging the medical science fact that from conception it is a unique living human being.

Those two arguments conflict, but the personhood argument is not scientific, it is political. It was first raised by progressives in the late 1800s in deciding who was a person and who not, where those not were being sterilized. It next cropped up as an excuse for the Holocaust. It reared it's ugly head again in the early 70s as a defense for abortion. It is political. There's no science behind it.

Animals don't make moral choices.

[Common Sense]

Well, now we're in agreement. You are arguing the typical progressive personhood argument, while I am arging the medical science fact that from conception it is a unique living human being.

Those two arguments conflict, but the personhood argument is not scientific, it is political. It was first raised by progressives in the late 1800s in deciding who was a person and who not, where those not were being sterilized. It next cropped up as an excuse for the Holocaust. It reared it's ugly head about in the early 70s as a defense for abortion. It is political. There's no science behind it.

Animals don't make moral choices.
There really is no scientific consensus on when human life begins. When the sperm enters the egg? When the sperm fertilizes the egg (that process can take hours)? When the egg travels down the fallopian tube and attaches to the uterus? Most fertilized eggs fail to attach. Is it when the cell can no longer divide? Is it when brainwaves are present?

There is no scientific consensus.

To claim that the debate is in any way related to social darwinism and the rationale behind genocide is disingenuous and political hyperbole.

[Chris]

There really is no scientific consensus on when human life begins. When the sperm enters the egg? When the sperm fertilizes the egg (that process can take hours)? When the egg travels down the fallopian tube and attaches to the uterus? Most fertilized eggs fail to attach. Is it when the cell can no longer divide? Is it when brainwaves are present?

There is no scientific consensus.

To claim that the debate is in any way related to social darwinism and the rationale behind genocide is disingenuous and political hyperbole.


Oh, but there is. Tell you what, find me a list of medical scientists who say life begins other than at conception.


The history is all documented, CS, sorry you don't like it. I agree the progressive personhood argument is disingenuous. It's simply not rational.

[Captdon]

It's called the right to privacy, my friend. The Supreme Court has long since determined privacy to be an implied constitutional right. I would also go further and suggest that it SHOULD be considered a protected right under the equal protection clause as well.

Then why isn't prostitution legal? Why isn't selling an organ legal?

[Cletus]

The courts have found a right to privacy inherent in at least four sections of the Bill of Rights - the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth. Don't forget, also, that the Ninth makes it clear that the BOR is not a complete list.

If killing your kid is a privacy issue, why isn't killing your neighbor or a total stranger?

[Dr. Who]

You tell me.
How isn't it? The Constitution doesn't address it, but it also doesn't address taking care of someone who is injured on the street. Some things are just taken as basic human rights.

[Kacper]

The world could use fewer people.

[Chris]

The world could use fewer people.

Everything from birth control to war is widely available.

[Chris]

How isn't it? The Constitution doesn't address it, but it also doesn't address taking care of someone who is injured on the street. Some things are just taken as basic human rights.

Then why is not everything a right?

Then the government would be powerless.

Sometimes consequences ought to be considered.

[nic34]

Eth is neither. I'm neither. It does seem to rile the left emotionally though.

If you had been following, its why my first response was that the question here is stupid.

[nic34]

If killing your kid is a privacy issue, why isn't killing your neighbor or a total stranger?

What kid are you referring to?

[Chris]

If you had been following, its why my first response was that the question here is stupid.

Seems to me it's not the question that's stupid, but some of the emotional responses.

[Chris]

What kid are you referring to?

Unborn "kids." Why is abortion protected as a privacy issue but murdering your neighbor is not?

[DGUtley]

It's not even in the bill of rights, so how can it be a right?

Roe v. Wade. It's not a right to have one, it's a privacy right of the woman to decide whether she's going to have one, subject to other constitutional limitations.

[Chris]

Roe v. Wade. It's not a right to have one, it's a privacy right of the woman to decide whether she's going to have one, subject to other constitutional limitations.

Every time I read that court opinion it seems odder and odder. It seems to me the majority opinion pulls a fast one. Throughout the opinion, the concern is the right to choose to have or not have a baby. No one would argue with that, if you don't want to have babies, don't. The fast one is they suddenly leap from choice to have or not a baby, to "That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." There's no deveopment, not reasoned arguments for that leap. They cite a case and declare the right to abortion is "protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." It's just such a weak argument.

Renquist's dissent tears it to shreds:


The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental," Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105 (1934). Even today, when society's views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the "right" to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn.Stat., Tit. 22, §§ 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. [Footnote 1] While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. [Footnote 3-2] Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857, and "has remained substantially unchanged to the present time." Ante at 119. There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.

[rcfieldz]

A fetus has no rights until the third trimester.

[Chris]

A fetus has no rights until the third trimester.

Legal positivism.