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

Wow, you've been studying for a 1000 years!

 

The constitution specifically says that there are right not enumerated within the constitution.

 

Why not?
As long as no other person's rights are violated, why can't we have all the rights anyone wants?

 

Where is a non person granted rights?

 

While taking law back to 1800 may apear 'Constitutionalist', it's actually anti-Constitutionalist...

The Supreme Court is there to maintain a balance, Alito's draft does the exact opposite. It's a tendentious argument that breaks the Court's neutrality, and undercuts over a century of law.

It's radical.

Even worse, because it is religion in disguise, it savages Rule of Law.

This way chaos lies...

 

If you think about it this is pretty much how all SCOTUS decisions are. How long did we have slavery before it was declared unconstitutional. A ban on women's voting? Segregation after slavery? Why does the number of years make a difference in what SCOTUS should decide? Think of it this way. It was well over a century before abortion was ever made illegal, since the Europeans first started colonizing what is now the US. Barely over a century since the formation in 1776, and then a little more than another century until RvW. So which is the undercut?

Don't get me wrong. I am very much against the decision itself. I am pointing out the flaw in your argument. Yes, it very well could be religion in disguise, but that doesn't automatically make it an undercut of the law simply because of the time imvolved.

 

First, the court changes with time, but it's back and forth. The court that started working against racism in the 1950s was the same body that did the evil Plessey v Ferguson.

Things change, and the law has to change with it. Dealing with the Modern era eventually killed Formalism.

The Founding Fathers made the country, and the law, secular. So, shoving religion in the back door is no different than throwing a bomb through the front window. Prob a little slower than a bomb, but the end result would be the same, violent conflict.

 

Agreed.

I've often said that the solution to the abortion question is to have a little office at the abortion clinic, where a woman who signs up there will be given full expenses and $5000 for any baby she signs over to them. The only problem I can see is all the women who would get pregnant just for the money. (lie detectors might help here)

The pro-lifers, of course, are aghast a "baby selling". Much better to coerce women to have children they don't want and then abandon them and the child. Saves them money too.

 

You realize you're justified spousal abuse then, right? You have no idea what privacy refers to do you? If government doesn't have a reason to intrude, it never does. You might want to consider your view here. If government can't preclude you from killing your unborn child using an interstate regulated service, why would government be able to preclude any actions that happen within your home? Or, require you, for example, to be vaccinated, or any other regulatory measure. You perhaps might want to rethink your absolutism here.

 

No he didn't.

 

The libertarian in me wants to agree, and to the extent that I'd support things like limiting government's ability to mandate things the effect your health or body, I also recognize that at a point in time an unborn child also should enjoy those same rights. And in much the same way as a baby once born isn't viable, meaning they can't survive without the aid and support of a parent, it doesn't obviate their rights. As a balance, as with any contending points where rights might conflict with personal intent, those are the areas where law has to intervene on the behalf of the unprotected. I understand the intent of the comment, but I would suggest it might ignore the competing rights of the unborn.

If we don't, we then have to agree with the theory of parental pejorative. That would conclude that children can't be viable on their own until what age then? If we accept what liberals say, that's like 27. I suggest that this isn't a viable policy. Nor should it be.

 

A right to privacy is a right to privacy that government won't be able to intrude into. In the confines of your castle, what visibility would government be allowed then? You say you want privacy, but then you don't actually want it? Try at least to be consisting.

 

Except we don't say.

 

.

 

Except he was talking about bodily privacy.

 

LOL.. I know, you don't just say it, you whine about it...

 

Where in the constitution does it define bodily privacy? And if you believe in it, how can you demand vaccinations?

 

I keep telling you guys, they don't care about the baby. It's about power, and nothing else.

 

Because diseases can infect other people.

 

To be precise. I was talking about self-proprietorship and personal/bodily autonomy. It's actually more of a property argument - property in one's self - than a privacy argument.

This is where I think the authors of Roe screwed up and left their ruling vulnerable to being overturned - they should have based the right to terminate a pregnancy (within reasonable bounds) on the right to self proprietorship.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. Since Magna Carta due process has always been intended to secure an individual's rights against any attempt by the government to arbitrarily violate or deprive an individual of their rights. Not to reduce their rights to privileges.

That's not to say that individuals and governments haven't viewed or treated people's rights as privileges or been inconsistent about upholding people's natural rights. Our nation's history might be considered, in part. a long exercise in forcing our government to uphold the rights it was instituted to secure, but previously refused and/or failed to do so.

 

LOL.. so you don't actually believe in bodily autonomy, and you agree that government can intervene, don't you. I suppose that at some point you're going to make the next logical leap from abortion to population control abortions for unauthorized pregnancy... Yes, we've seen the movie already. It's like you think folks forget or something.

 

There are limits to my own position on this precisely because I recognize the competing interests of the mother and unborn, but the question is when and/or where we draw the line between the point where the mother's rights supersede that of the unborn and vice versa. I think the authors of Roe tried to strike a balance between the two, but as with all cases involving conflicting views and interests, you're never going to make everyone happy.

 

IMO
It’s THEIR body
They do what they want with it
The end

also whatever happened to condoms? Is it really that difficult to just wrap it up?

 

Agreed.