Is there a right to abortion, and if so, where does the right come from?

I did that already. You responded with the attachment.

 

Not if she's aborted.

 

Bodily autonomy means what it says, right?

Bodily autonomy applies to women as well as men, right?

Bodily autonomy means a woman can do as she pleases with her own body, and it strongly implies privacy.

 

Name one woman who that applies to.

 

Rights are a fiction really. Those in power decide them to the extent that they can enforce them positively or negatively. As for abortion, I suppose at the time of Roe, those in power were sick of seeing women straddled with babies they didn't want or couldn't afford, so they imagined up this right. 50 years later, those in power apparently are tired of seeing women take this right to the extreme so they are setting up a scenario that allows the right to be fettered based on changing cultural mores.

 

I've never put an attachment in this thread. You claimed that an attachment someone else posted was incorrect. As of the point where I asked you to show how the attachment was wrong, you had not shown how it was. If you did so afterwards, then what post was it?

 

It may or may not involve privacy. Bodily autonomy applies while out in a public area where privacy does not apply. Whether or not privacy applies is moot to the overall issue of bodily autonomy.

Also keep in mind that bodily autonomy does not absolutely mean doing whatever you please with your own body. You cannot violate the bodily autonomy of other people on the basis of your own bodily autonomy. Now while anti-abortionists might try to claim that this is basis of why a woman cannot abort an offspring without violating the offspring's bodily autonomy, the offspring is the one in initial violation of the woman's bodily autonomy. It's that initial violation that determines whose bodily autonomy comes to the fore.

 

Yep the fetus does not come first.

 

I was referring to the post to which the person with the attachment responded. You can stop harassing me now.

 

That is absolutely correct, but not every right the populace can want or dream up.

 

They never had a name because it was stolen away from them

 

Agreed - they have to be legitimate rights and legitimate extensions of legitimate rights, such as the right to bear arms being a legitimate extension of the legitimate right to self-defense, which is an extension of the fundamental right to life.

 

I agree. As I mentioned in the OP, the right to terminate a pregnancy is an extension of the the fundamental right to self-propriety. That fundamental right has extended to other rights, as well.

 

I disagree that our unalienable natural rights are "a fiction", and I will add that governments cannot and do not grant rights. What governments grant are privileges.

I would agree that rationale behind Roe is weak and should have been grounded on a sounder foundation. While I agree with the "liberty" and "privacy" arguments I concede that they are extremely broad, vague and subjective, thus, while I disagree with the decision to overturn, it doesn't surprise me.

 

It is only taken away by vote of the duly elected state representatives, representing the will of the majority of the people.

 

Agreed, but abortion overwhelmingly threatens only the fundamental right to life of a fetus.

 

However, like privacy, there is no constitutional right to bodily autonomy.

 

There is no Constitutional right to self-propriety.

 

So there should be no law against murder because it is prescribed in the Bible???

 

Unenumerated rights have been around for roughly a century.

What Alito did in that draft is nuts, if it became law, it would set law back roughly a century. Although I've seen legal experts say 2 centuries. (It depends on how crazy the Right wing radicals on the court want to get.)

 

The federal government authorizes non-enumerated edicts out the gazoo; they are just not constitutional, which is very troubling to constitutionalists.

Alito's draft does not propose any law. It just says that SCOTUS should not make rulings where is has no authority to do so.

 

Yes, that’s exactly what I meant.

 

If that were the case, then every miscarriage would have to be investigated as a possible homicide or manslaughter.

 

So a married woman shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion because some other single woman made a Tic-Toc video? Interesting. Should we apply that
logic to everything?

 

And yet the same guys who posited these "inalienable" rights in 1776 turned around and made them defeasible i.e. "privileges" in 1789 with the due process clause.