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

So, why can't it be any rights, as long as it is not violating anothers right to do as they want. Or legally possess what they want.

 

Our roots would in the 1700s, ans early 1800s... wouldn't it?

 

For all that I am pro choice, this is a poor argument. Legally, slaves were not others, or at least not full others. So the argument that because a person is not legally recognized as a person, they are not a person falls flat. I'm not say that there are not better arguments to support the concept that the unborn are not person's, but this is not an argument that does.

 

Indeed, probably even earlier if you begin with the first colonies. I am speaking of the current country and it's initial roots prior to becoming one, and not ignoring the fact that we uprooted and supplanted the prior residents.

 

And that would probably be considered an abortion, but I agree with you that there exists no right to the procedure itself. No one is obligated to provide that to you, but I do contend that women have a right to seek and obtain it, whether it be in the form of a pill or a surgical procedure.

 

The ages old maxim in this case has been "that which is not forbidden is permitted", and judging from the Bill of Rights I think it's pretty obvious that the Founders understood that. From a purely legal perspective, it is from this space of permission that many rights and privileges were originally derived.

 

What differences? Do you agree that folks have a right to bodily autonomy or not? And if you agree with the premise, do you only agree to only when you agree with it? Because that's pretty much what you just wrote.....

 

1972, year before Roe v Wade abortion was a crime in half the states.

 

Most states in the early 1800s followed English Common law. Abortions after 15-16 weeks were illegal.

 

Like everything else its circumstantial.

 

Got it. Just when you want it to be a thing. Consistency isn't a strong suit in liberal circles....

 

Its very consistent, you see one basic tenant of reality is that everything changes. Tell me, is killing someone a crime?

 

That was 50 years ago.

 

Yes. Enumerating every freedom “granted” by government is literally impossible.

Both teams would deny many more of our freedoms, if they had their way. Their only disagreement, really, is about the size and shape of our cage.

 

You mistake semantic meaning with a discussion. When a virus kills someone, for example, that isn't part of your model, is it? If lightening strikes someone, and it kills them, that doesn't fit your model either, or any other number of natural occurrences that lead to the death of a person. I understand why you live in a vague world. It never forces you to be specific. Crime is a convention that has multiple facets to it. You now this, which encases then your desire to be non specific.

 

Nope, according to you circumstances are irrelevant.

 

Its more like the left wing radicals that don't know anything about the SCOTUS or how they operate so they can claim leftist ideology instead of actual facts.

Even if the SCOTUS overturned Roe, it doesn't make abortions illegal. It puts the legality back in the states hands to vote on so the people get to vote on the issue.
Its just too bad these idiots protesting in front of the judges houses don't have a clue.

 

LOL... nice try to hide from your own comments then. Consistency doesn't require that much effort. But we have to understand that if we agree in the law that folks enjoy the autonomy then there aren't cases where we don't.

 

Ironic, Right wing radicals pretending mainstream legal thinking is radical.

I agree with the idea that harassment isn't proper. But the idea that you're going to take us back to the 1800s without strife, nope... Remember 2018 midterms?

 

As opposed to the 1800s

 

It was legal in the early 1800s...

We changed a lot when we joined the Modern era. Going back to the way it was before that is crazy.

 

Wacktivist astroturf aside, the concern amongst reasonable-minded folks is that if Roe is overturned and the SCOTUS/federal government abdicates securing what many consider a right or extension of a right, many of the states will make abortion illegal. So, in effect, overturning Roe will result in making abortions illegal:

13 states have trigger laws automatically banning most or all abortions if Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/13...tomatically-abortion-supreme-court-roe-v-wade

13 states have passed so-called ‘trigger laws,’ bans designed to go into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/us/state-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned/index.html

On principle, I have several problems with this. The first is that the last time the so-called "Roberts Court" abdicated its responsibility to secure our personal rights from government intrusion we wound up with the ObamaCare individual mandate. The second is do we really want to leave matters concerning rights in the hands of the electorate? That's not how a constitutional republic operates - that's how the democracy/mob rule in Ancient Athens operated. It doesn't matter if we're talking about the rights surrounding Roe or the rights surrounding the First, Second or Fourth Amendments, and as you may recall there was quite a kerfuffle here in Virginia surrounding the 2A, voters and the state government several years ago. This is like out of the frying pan and into the fire....

 

If you think the baby has no rights, no feelings and no desire to live, I'm sure it's an easy question for you. That's where the dividing line is. If you think this way, we cannot have a reasonable discussion.

You pro-choicers are alienating moderates with your bullhorns and demonstrations outside the justices' homes.

Why do you do that?

 

A glob of cells, called a zygote, isn’t a baby.

 

You are correct about the 2nd amendment et al. It does not bestow a right to a gun but the right to buy/own a gun. But you're off point with healthcare. Every proponent of open healthcare is not talking about unrestricted access but of actual provision. That cannot happen unless someone else's rights are taken away. Someone must pay for it, a doctor must provide it to a patient as often as the patient asks, a hospital must preform surgery, even elective surgery, and long term care, etc. Constitutional rights are about natural born God given inalienable rights which cannot include a firearm, a pulpit or magazine, a church, or health care.

I agree

That is correct except it is not what the pro abortionists want. They are not interested in the fetus' survival; they want the fetus to go away entirely. That's why they keep pushing the limit like with some states already allowing abortion right up to the moment of birth, many states allowing abortion after 7 even 8 months, and at least one state, Maryland IIRC, pushing for effective abortion up to two to four weeks after birth by calling for no criminal investigation or charges of a parent who simply lets a new born starve or freeze to death within some time limits.