Abortion is for the most part an elective medical procedure. Just like removing a non-cancerous mole, liposuction, circumcision. im not sure if States should not have the right to regulate such procedures, including abortion, except to protect the life or physical health of the mother. if bringing a child to term will likely kill the mother or cause serious physical harm, abortion must be allowed. Or if the child was conceived as the result of a rape or forced incest. I understand the Right to Privacy argument (which Roe v Wade is totally based on) but I don't think it can be reasonably applied to elective medical procedures. Just as I think States should have the right to regulate and even ban tanning salons, certain extreme piercings, etc.
Perhaps regulate - as all medical procedures are regulated but not ban or severely restrict. Gov't - of its own volition - has no legitimate authority to make any law messing with individual liberty.
It can regulate - like all medical procedures are regulated .. authorized practitioners and so on. We don't want back room abortions being performed with coat hangers. This represents a legitimate harm to people and thus is within the legitimate purview of Gov't (which is protection from direct harm - murder, rape, theft and so on) What is outside the legitimate purview is banning abortion or restricting to the point of unavailability. The Gov't has no legitimate authority to - of its own volition - restrict essential liberty .. Full Stop.
actually according to the US govt. the States have all authority not specifically granted to the Federal govt. that includes regulating elective medical procedures. your platitude about liberty is nice but it has no legal standing.
So you diminish the principle on which this nation was founded to a "Platitude". This is sad. Perhaps you do not care about individual liberty but, me and the founders do not share your opinions. Your claim that the founding principles have no legal standing is demonstrably false https://legaldictionary.net/constitutional-republic/ In other words .. as per the Declaration of Independence/ document which outlines the main principles on which the and the constitution are to be interpreted - Gov't has no legitimate authority to mess with individual liberty. The idea that Judges have not used these principles to form any legal president is simply false.
ok, buddy, please state your case based on the Constitution and the Constitution alone, as to why abortion on demand must be protected by all States.
What part of - principles under which law and the constitution are to be interpreted - are you not getting. These principles act in conjunction with the constitution. The constitution was never intended to cover all possibilities - which is why the founders put general principles in place. It is also the reason for the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" All rights/individual liberty is to be protected. The right of a woman to authority over her own body is an undeniably a right. What is grey is the rights of the entity Zygote and Fetus throughout pregnancy. We then have a case of a conflict of rights. This is easily resolved in the early stages of pregnancy as it can not be proven that the entity should be valued on the same footing as a living human .. which would then put the rights of the "zygote" within the legitimate purview of Gov't. When it comes to the zygote - single human cell at conception - the best place anti aborts can get to is "Experts Disagree". There are 5 different scientific perspectives on "when human life begins" (then there are other Philosophical perspectives). Keep in mind that even if we could claim "human life begins here" this still does not show that a living human exists. These 5 perspectives are - Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological. Only one puts the beginning at conception and that perspective has fallen out of favor among scientists for various reasons such as the twinning argument - that after conception the zygote has the possibility of creating two or more humans. Regardless - the unescapable fact of the matter is that "Experts Disagree" When use the scales of Justice to weigh the rights of the zygote against the rights of the mother - the weight on the side of the mother is heavy. Individual liberty of the mother is highly valued. How then do we value the other side ? How do we value "Experts Disagree" = "We don't know/We don't know otherwise". We do not make law in this nation on the basis of "We don't know" / We don't know otherwise - especially when it comes to messing with individual liberty. In the latter stages of pregnancy there are legitimate arguments the Gov't could make.. not in the early stages.
so you believe government has no authority to ban the posession and use of crack, heroine, meth? does govt. have the authority to make self-harm illegal at all? does govt. have the authority to mandate what and how your children are educated? does govt. have the authority to mandate you wear a seatbelt?
does govt. have the authority to mandate a camera be in your home watching your every move? does govt. have the authority to mandate several hours of exercise per day, supervised by a govt. licensed exercise instructor? One has to wonder where all this authority comes from. Perhaps you can explain.
do you believe govt. has the authority to ban the possession of cocaine, crack, meth and heroine for personal use? do you believe govt. has the authority to ban self-harm? do you believe govt. has the authority to mandate all children receive a quality edication that consists of certain core subject matter such as reading, writing, math, history and science?
You: """ Or if the child was conceived as the result of a rape or forced incest.""""" WHY? Why do you make an exception for rape and incest? The abortion in the case of rape and incest is EXACTLY the same for an abortion due to consensual sex. The procedure and outcome are EXACTLY the same. Why is one fetus "precious life " that has to be preserved even if it means taking away citizens right to their own bodies but the other ( a fetus due to rape) is NOT so "precious" ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
because abortion is not elective if the child was the result of a rape or incest. this is about purely elective abortion or to protect the life or physical health of the mother,
The education thing is kind of outside the scope. Yes is the answer to the other questions. You missed the "in of itself" part though. If the Gov't wants to make a law restricting individual liberty it must appeal for a change to the social contract - construct by which "We the People" give the power for the Gov't to punish. As said previously - the bar is overwhelming majority - at least 2/3rds. Both republicanism and classical liberalism viewed simple majority mandate as "tyranny of the majority". You raise a good example. Take Pot vs Heroin/Meth/Crack. If something is so harmful that the citizens need to give power to the government to punish people who engage in that activity then an overwhelming majority should be no problem. How many people think murder should be legal ..an overwhelming majority agree that it should be illegal. The bar is no different for any other law. You would not get 2/3 rd's agreeing that Pot should be illegal - not in this day in age. This law is then illegitimate. Meth and similar. I think you would get overwhelming agreement. That is the test for any law messing with individual liberty - outside the legitimate purview of Gov't. And that is that.
Who's the one making the decision in that case? The 13-year-old little girl? Why no concern that she may be coerced to make a decision against her will? If you were really pro-choice, you'd care.
The real rights issue is whether states are legally entitled to jurisdiction over children born or conceived within their borders. (despite popular belief, state jurisdiction doesn't suddenly entirely fall off once a party has moved to another state's jurisdiction)
You seem very confused o what "elective" means . A fetus is a fetus no matter how it was conceived . And abortion are abortions, have the same procedure and same outcome there is NO difference in the ABORTIONS … So why is the abortion due to rape OK.....and the abortion due to consensual sex not OK UNLESS IT'S TO PUNISH WOMEN FOR HAVING CONSENSUAL SEX. WTF? What do you mean it's not "elective" ? You intend to FORCE raped women to have abortions??? Now answer the questions : Why do you make an exception for rape and incest? The abortion in the case of rape and incest is EXACTLY the same for an abortion due to consensual sex. The procedure and outcome are EXACTLY the same. Why is one fetus "precious life " that has to be preserved even if it means taking away citizens right to their own bodies but the other ( a fetus due to rape) is NOT so "precious" ??
I don't believe that I have a right to punish my neighbor for smoking crack. We are equals. I have no such authority over him. Given that I have no such authority, I can't give such authority to another person.
Rarely do I see a dispassionate analysis of this question, and so I usually just avoid this issue completely. It sounds to me as though you are suggesting that, as a pregnancy progresses, the strength of the mother's right to control what goes on in her own body may become lessened as the right to life of the unborn baby becomes more persuasive, and that at some point, the baby's right to life may overtake the mother's right to end the pregnancy with an abortion. This seems logical to me given that an unborn baby's survivability outside the womb is about 50% at 25 weeks, 80% at 26 weeks, and 90% to equal to a full term pregnancy from 27 weeks forward. https://www.verywellfamily.com/premature-birth-and-viability-2371529
I have often thought that this should be an issue that the states regulate. It would be OK with me if states allowed it to be regulated county by county.
So you believe the state should establish the precedent that a person can be forced to let another person use their body against their will?
I don't either. Those were the examples used - I gave the bar that the Gov't is supposed to use - Regardless of whether or not I agree with the particular action in question - what constitutes legitimate law - legitimate authority of Gov't. The people can give Gov't authority to legislate against anything - so long as there is overwhelming agreement - at least 2/3rds. This the bar that distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate use of Gov't authority as per the principles on which this nation was founded. The Gov't does not have much use for these principles anymore - but this is what the founders intended.
Thanks and yes - I do claim that the value "weight on the scales" increases with time. If we say "there is no living human" then the value on the scales of Justice is low. While we do have laws against cruelty to animals - this is a different thing as the animal is no threat to the human. The "defense" or "right to occupy the womb" argument does not come into play. There is no right to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness that is being defended in the case of cruelty to animals. The claim that the entity is "a human" and thus entitled to rights - including the right to life - gets stronger as the Fetus becomes more and more like a human. This is just common sense IMO - but is also scientifically measurable. If a living human ceases to have significant brain function - that person is clinically dead as per the coroners definition - the plug is pulled and the dirt nap begins. That living human no longer has the right to life - as per this definition. Once the Fetus attains significant brain function (and this can be measured - it is not a guess within a certain time interval) - when the wiring of the brain is completed the brain lights up like a xmas tree - I find it very difficult to claim this entity is not a living human at this point - viable outside the womb or not. If we define what we value about humanity/personhood - that definition will include what ? Love, Pleasure, Fond memories, Learning, Friends, Family and so on ? The value of "Life" in of itself is questionable. A person who is under extreme torture can be made to beg for death. "I think therefor I am" This suggests that if I can not think - I am not. This is my rational for claiming that once the human entity is having thoughts - It is a person .. it is a living human.
So if some counties or states wanted to further this abuse of everyone's right to their own body we could have slave states and slave counties ? Afterall, if one group ( pregnant women) lose the right to their own bodies how/why/where will it stop? Who's next?
