Abortion is in the constitution.

Your entire thread is based on opinion.
Nothing in your op counters that fact.

As has been pointed out to you you can insert whatever opinion you wish and call it Liberty.

 

No. Why do you ask?

 

However, it is a right the court has granted in Roe, and now Republicans want the court to take that right away.
Wrong. In Roe v Wade:
The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.

In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

https://www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/roe-v-wade

The Court overturned the Roe trimester framework in favor of a viability analysis, thereby allowing states to implement abortion restrictions that apply during the first trimester of pregnancy. The Court also replaced the strict scrutiny standard of review required by Roe with the undue burden standard, under which abortion restrictions would be unconstitutional when they were enacted for "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." Applying this new standard of review, the Court upheld 4 provisions of the Pennsylvania law, but invalidated the requirement of spousal notification. Four justices wrote or joined opinions arguing that Roe v. Wade should have been struck down, while 2 justices wrote opinions favoring the preservation of the higher standard of review for abortion restrictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

 

My opinion, and that of some learned persons arguing precisely that opinion before the Supreme Court.

Until the law codifies a fetus as having the same rights as someone who has been born, then
abortion is a penumbra right of a woman covered by the liberty, bodily autonomy, and privacy aspects of the constitution, though limited by viability under Roe (noting that SCOTUS rulings often limit rights of one kind or another)..

Roe has already established 'bodily autonomy' and 'privacy', The only thing I added to Roe was 'liberty'. But, I didn't make that up, that was the argument presented by Julie Rikelman, arguing for Center for Productive Rights, and Elizabeth Prelogar, US Solicitor General. who made the liberty argument before the Supreme Court.

You have, in point of fact, not offered any counter argument. Saying it is an 'opinion' is not a counter argument.

I specifically raised their arguments to see if any one could provide a better counter argument.

And the best you can do is say 'its an opinion'?

What, are you lazy?

 

A woman has rights such as getting married and having children. A woman also has a right to cross her legs and not get pregnant if single.

The key you dismiss is no one has the right to take a life.

Progressives believe you can do anything you want and never suffer any consequences and like abortion, jump through hoops to justify taking a life.

 

Nope, sorry.

 

I'll keep my personal opinion of you to myself. Now that we have that out of the way the topic...

The first thing you did was appeal to some unnamed " learned person's" as though this somehow lends more weight to your opinion.

Again I'll point out the simple fact that you're using an opinion to define the word or what falls under that word itself.

What if I wish to consume illegal drugs? You think if you got arrested for that you can go to court and say it was part of your liberties granted by the Constitution?

 

Nope, you committed a pretty awesome self own there...

 

Hmmm, it really seems all that Casey did was reaffirm Roe, but relax the standard of viability so I don't see how I'm wrong.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/us/politics/supreme-court-planned-parenthood-casey.html
As the justices consider the Mississippi law, they will have to take account of the controlling opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a joint effort by three Republican appointees, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, David H. Souter and Anthony M. Kennedy. That ruling affirmed what it called Roe v. Wade’s essential holding, that states may not prohibit abortions before fetal viability.

Casey also introduced a more relaxed standard to evaluate restrictions short of outright bans before fetal viability, saying that states could not impose an undue burden on the right to abortion.

“A finding of an undue burden is a shorthand for the conclusion that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus,” the opinion said.

“Our adoption of the undue burden analysis does not disturb the central holding of Roe v. Wade, and we reaffirm that holding,” it continued. “Regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, a state may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.”

Now, I wrote:

Until the law codifies a fetus as having the same rights as someone who has been born, then
abortion is a penumbra right of a woman covered by the liberty, bodily autonomy, and privacy aspects of the constitution, though limited by viability under Roe (reaffirmed by Casey, noting that SCOTUS rulings often limit rights of one kind or another)..

Roe has already established 'bodily autonomy' and 'privacy', The only thing I added to Roe was 'liberty'. But, I didn't make that up, that was the argument presented by Julie Rikelman, arguing for Center for Productive Rights, and Elizabeth Prelogar, US Solicitor General. who made the liberty argument before the Supreme Court.

so, Republicans do want to take that right ( though limited ) away.

Do they not?

.

 

Adjusting the point of viability based on current science would also be constitutional according to you right?

 

Per law, 'abortion' does not equal 'take a life'

So, legally speaking, your point is moot.

Your only argument is on the moral, philosophical, side.

On that, we will just have to disagree.

 

A country can codify anything; thus, the horrific laws in Nazi Germany. Anyone can then do terrible things lawfully.

If we are no longer a moral people then anything goes.

 

The fact that rights are man made has nothing to do with politics.

 

A skilled debater presents only relevant facts, reasoning, etc., to his or argument.

You might want to note that next time you have the urge to exceed that boundary.

You should look before you shoot.

The 'learned persons' were given in my comment, if you had read a little further down I wrote:

Roe has already established 'bodily autonomy' and 'privacy', The only thing I added to Roe was 'liberty'. But, I didn't make that up, that was the argument presented by Julie Rikelman, arguing for Center for Productive Rights, and Elizabeth Prelogar, US Solicitor General. who made the liberty argument before the Supreme Court.

Maybe that association wasn't clear, so I'll cut you some slack on that one.

All I did was present the arguments ( the essence of which was 'liberty' ) made before Scotus by the learned ladies, Julie Rikelman, arguing for Center for Productive Rights, and Elizabeth Prelogar, US Solicitor General.

Your 'illegal drug' analogy doesn't work, as abortion is legal.

 

'Constitutional' is ultimately up to Scotus, not science, nor myself.

Science can submit amicus briefs, and people like me can stand outside the court and shout, but that's about it.

Right?

 

So, what, America is Nazi Germany now?

Hoosier8, say it isn't so.

 

Prove me wrong that countries can codify bad things.

 

Viability is an arbitrary point and current science has lowered it so just as constitutional right?

 

Thats pathetic. Where is the magic phrase that would make any of that true? You know that phrase, you know the phrase unless they are in the womb. That's right it doesn't. The only real beneficiaries of legal abortion are men who recklessly create children with women and then dump those women as if carrying their child reduces that same woman to the status of garbage.

 

Yeah, she poo pooed welfare all of her life, but wound up on the dole in her later years.

Wonderful.

 

Yes, and tossing a torch in an ordinance bunker will cause a lot of death, too. But that fact isn't relevant to her point noting that black women are four times as likely to die from complications to pregnancy than white women, and that point is, subjecting a woman to take risks ( the severity of which is irrelevant) life altering consequences without her consent, is, in point of fact, depriving her of her liberty.

It isn't up to you, or me, or anyone but the woman, as to what 'risk' and 'life altering' means.

Do you realize the emotional trauma forcing a woman to give birth to a fetus conceived in rape or incest might do to her?

I don't now if there is such a thing as a devil's child, but if there were, that would be it.

 

You should probably take your own advice then I'm not sure what your opinion of me has to do with anything here.

And yes I did read the whole thing and I got your association with the woman who's making the argument.

You and her both have something in common, you are both incorrect.

And my analogy can work for any topic under the Sun almost. Just declaring that something is an essential part of Liberty does not magically make it included in the Constitution.

 

No, I think it's reasonable.

 

Roe didn't claim it 'created the right'. It recognized it as a penumbra right.

 

You do realize that medicine, if taken more than perscribed, is essentially poison, right?

You do understand what a 'strawman argument' is, right?

OF course you can qualify my point, but was it really necessary to do that?

You're not really countering my point, you are nitpicking it to a strawman.