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

From my point of view, the question is: Should the government have the power to impose beliefs onto individuals?

For those who believe that government force should be used to stop abortions, all I ask is how one would enforce these laws. So far, no one has been able to answer that question.

 

They can close abortion clinics

 

Today a doctor can and does so refuse to treat a patient, a hospital can and does refuse admission, and an insurance company (and Medicare for that matter) can and does refuse coverage, all without violating some extra-judicial Hippocratic oath If health care is a natural right none of that will be allowed making slaves of doctors and hospitals and reluctant payers of insurance companies (and the tax payer -- me)

This simply ignores and sweeps under the rug the fact, as I said in my post, that it is hotly debated, unclear and uncertain if an abortion takes an other's right to life, and if so, when.

 

Whose definition? Is Webster or your Funk n Wagnalls now deciding this hotly debated issue?

 

All very true. Hence the rub. One of the fundamental premises of the framers was the Constitution must be short.

 

Government always thinks it has the power to impose beliefs on individuals. No question about it....

Enforcement will be spotty at best. It's going to be near impossible to keep abortion pills out of people's hands and providers in states such as mine are preparing for an influx of cases from areas where abortion has been banned.

 

While not absolute, that is pretty much the premise of constitutionalism. The rub, re this thread, is whether abortion violates someone else's rights.

 

In the early 1800s and previous there was very little knowledge about pregnancy, embryos, fetuses, and such. In biblical times a woman was not considered pregnant until quickening, about 4-5 months after actual (though unknown) pregnancy. They knew something was odd when a woman stopped menstruating, but didn't have any idea what.

 

Nope. Most frequently illegal after 15-16 weeks, quickening.

 

Ok. So they can create a demand for medical tourism for those with some money, and abortion drugs for those on a tight budget. This will only conceal the true number of abortions. No different than closing ones eyes.

How would you use government force to address these two issues?

 

It was typically legal until the quickening.

That's a yes...

 

Sorry to disagree but that is precisely how a constitutional republic operates with some very fundamental exceptions.

 

Me personally? I wouldn't do anything. I thought you were asking about mechanics of government suppression of abortion.

 

I think he means that rights are not subject to majoritarian whims under the U.S. Constitution.

But we could repeal the entire bill of rights and still be a republic. Gun confiscation and closures of radio stations could be resisted on the grounds that such are not legitimate exercises of power.

The Bill of Rights was tacked onto the constitution at the end as a political compromise, not to ensure a Republic.

 

I agree. There is no way abortion laws could be enforced. They might as well call it The War on Abortion. It will fail.

 

No they don't.

 

No it won't.

 

Well, we agree that abortions will continue regardless of law. I don't agree that closing clinics won't have a significant impact.

 

That would be correct, thanks.

True, but a Bill of Rights serves to cut off any argument that the government could make that it was within its powers and/or interest to confiscate guns or shut down broadcasters.

Technically true, but as was the case with the English Levellers and their draft constitution for post-civil war England people wanted to make the point that while they were granting certain powers to the government they were also reserving certain rights for themselves that could not be touched. Not only was it important to enumerate those rights, the gesture in reserving those rights is important in and of itself because it is an expression of the sovereignty of the people over the government they are instituting, in no small part, to secure those fundamental rights. In the case of our BOR, I think there was also a concern that the federal government had been granted such broad and potentially expanding powers that it was important to narrow them in order to maintain the existence of a legitimate republic in the face of the constant pressure of unscrupulous and power-hungry individuals and interests that would have it turned it into a banana republic.

 

Actually, in many respects we do agree, Rob, and I consider our rights to be one of those very fundamental exceptions.

 

If they don't, the alternative is for an individual to figure out himself what is causing his ailments, figure out and direct a medical procedure to fix it, or invent, develop, and manufacture a chemical medication to cure it. He won't need to write himself a prescription. If the fix he determines requires surgery he goes into his bathroom with scissors, scalpels, knives, maybe saws, maybe a bottle of whiskey, needles and thread and preforms his own surgery (let's hope it is not open heart surgery he needs). Then he goes into his bedroom to rest and take whatever herb he has found helps the pain. Otherwise you must enslave doctors and hospitals and force other people to pay for his medical care. There are no other alternatives.

 

So you saying that every country that has healthcare as a right has enslaved its medical personnel?

 

Yes, those medical personnel treat precisely who they are told to treat exactly as how, where, and when told, and until the government institutes rationing (and they always do) they have to treat that person every time he says and for whatever he says. Or they can become a teacher, fireman, policeman, carpenter, plumber, or whatever, but they cannot be in the medical profession. Some of those slaves are paid very well and their slavery is somewhat voluntary, but enslaved none the less (in the famous words of Curt Flood).

 

Nope, sorry.

 

Then change the status of the unborn to a legal person. As was done for black people.
At what point should the unborn be considered a legal person with all the rights afforded? And if the mother has an accident, and the baby dies as a result, is she guilty of some murder or manslaughter charge?