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

That is absolutely true. It just doesn't say what those unenumerated rights are.

 

Another person unable distinguish that things are different.

 

Maybe so, but some rights cannot be had, like healthcare, e.g, without violating someone else's rights Others the state decides are not warranted. Take an absolute right to bodily autonomy for instance. If that were true states could not have a law against suicide (and who knows, maybe they shouldn't). The crux of the abortion issue is not what a woman can or cannot do with her own body but, in a hotly debated and unclear and uncertain factor, does an abortion take an other's right to life, and if so, when.

 

They aren't, but that evades and deflects the real question of abortion which is when does a fetus become a person.

 

Wrong.

 

No, the supreme court is there and authorized to interpret written law and the Constitution, predominately on an appellate basis. It was not established and authorized to balance anything.

 

What things are different? You either agree to bodily autonomy or you don't. More, if you believe in bodily autonomy, why don't you respect it for the unborn? The hypocrisy of you folks is astounding.

 

Yes, unenumerated rights have been recognized as protected by the Due Process Clause. Those rights that are "deeply rooted in this nations history and traditions" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty", even though they are not listed in the constitution. Abortion IS NOT such a right. It was a freakin crime in half the states when Roe was decided.

 

Actually, abortion is 'such a right'.

Some of us have left the 1800s behind. Going back will be a horrific mistake.

 

They've been around forever, and as far as the United States is concerned, since the Constitution was written.

 

Except when we get sent to war or want to refuse an experimental vaccine that we know now has a high mortality rate and a low efficacy rate.

 

So you don't understand the differences in things. Got it.

 

The problem here is that you are not using viable in the correct fashion, at least not in the context of it's use within the abortion debate and the law. Viability has to do with the offspring's ability to survive outside the womb, period. Now there is a variation on whether that means with extraordinary medical means or not, but in either case it's considered that point where the offspring has a 50% chance or better at surviving outside the womb. Prior to that point, it is unlikely that any amount of medical intervention will keep the offspring alive. The issue of viability is not whether the offspring can feed itself or change its own clothes or anything like that. It's about the basic processes of life, and whether it can maintain them without its connection to the womb and the woman's bodily resources.

This is the rare case of both parties are the "unprotected". Protecting the rights of one necessitates the violation of the rights of the other, assuming that the unborn actually has rights.

Thing is that is has never been a parental pejorative issue. If it were a matter of parental pejorative, then the genetic mother could force an abortion upon a surrogate carrying her the mother's genetic offspring. But since the issue is one of bodily autonomy, the surrogate is the one to decide whether or not she can get an abortion or not, not the genetic mother. Thus the issue and conflict is resolved once the offspring is no longer in the woman's body, and there is no worry about conflict of rights.

 

Along with that the right to end a pregnancy does not automatically constitute a right to the abortion procedure itself. I've been noting that there is no law on how early one can get induced labor. It certainly would end the pregnancy post-viability and when there is no immediate threat to the woman's life.

 

Bodily autonomy, like all rights, has its limits, and those limits are when it is in violation of other's rights. Now that doesn't mean that there is not questions as to what extent an event is or is not a violation of another's rights. With the vaccine issue, which vaccines are actually needed and which are not, to prevent a wide spread contamination? That kind of detail can make one vaccine requirement a violation of bodily autonomy and another not. And in the end there are alternatives to a vaccine, which might include isolation instead. It becomes a matter of how much of a threat to others the virus is. When it comes to an issue like abortion, there really isn't any alternatives at this point that would not then translate to other violations of bodily autonomy being allowed. If we can force a woman to gestate to term in order to save a life, then we can in turn force a person to give up blood, marrow or spare organs to save a life.

 

The problem comes from those who think that a right means that something must be provided to you. If that were true, then per the second amendment, the government would have to provide everyone arms to bear. Or a platform for their free speech. Or provide the place of worship for each of the different individual religions and denominations thereof. But that simply is not true. A right to healthcare is as simple as the government cannot prevent our access to healthcare, nor can a non-government third party.

Honestly, they shouldn't and it's a right to life based violation, as well as a bodily autonomy one. I have the right to maintain or not maintain my life. It is not for others to decide that I must live. We are moving in the right direction slowly. DNR orders are now commonplace. And Washington has allowed for assisted suicide for terminal patients. No doubt that other states will eventually follow. Especially as we have longer and longer live, a person's right to no longer go on should be maintained.

The right to life is a major one. Under many circumstances, say rape for example, you are not supposed to kill the assailant unless there is no other way to stop the violation. Now, granted, the reality of application is that no one is going to question a victim or rescuer's claim that everything else they tried failed. But even so, an investigation of homicide ensues. With abortion, pre-viability, there simply is no other procedure that ends the violation of the woman's bodily autonomy rights other than one that terminates the offspring. At some point in the future, maybe we will have procedures that allows us to take the offspring out without terminating it and with equal or less bodily trauma (an important aspect) as an abortion. At that point we are in a whole other ball game.

 

And it was not a crime prior to the 1860's. What's your point? If one looks honestly at the history of abortion within the US, then it was a right taken away and then restored, and now taken away again.

 

As noted, abortion was legal in the early 1800's. Maybe more accurate to say that we have left the late 1800's behind and gone back to our roots, as many conservative keep claiming they want to.

 

No one in USA is denied healthcare, ever. It might even go against the healthcare profession, maybe the hippocratic oath to deny a person healthcare.
As that as seen as a right by the loyalist of healthcare workers.

So, I disagree with healthcare cannot be a right. And no one else's rights are violated.

How do they prosecute one who has succeeded in suicide? Or if they don't succeed, are they sent to prison? Or into the healthcare system to see if they can determine the cause one might commit suicide and help them rid the person of such thoughts.
So suicide laws are really worthless and IMO just some sort of feel good law that never gets enforced.

Abortion takes no other's right to life, for there is NO other involved. At least legally. And all the gov't can enforce are legal concepts. At least civil gov'ts.

 

According to definitions of persons, once they are born.
But there are many cases in which the fetus has been granted rights, when the pregnant woman decides to give it rights by carry the birth to full term.
But the only right granted is, the right to be born. A fetus has no other rights AFAIK. Can they collect gov't benefits? A SSN? The right to bear arms?

Which rights that the mother hasn't given an unborn, does any fetus have under law or constitution?

 

It’s no more an individual than a blueprint is a house. Very clear conscience destroying things with no mind, no capacity for suffering nor rudimentary thought. More guilt to be had in a typical dinner, frankly.

 

The conclusion is the same, but these archaic allusions to “natural rights” and god seem silly to me. I get that you used it to speak the fallacious language of the law. People have a right to self-determination over their bodies, e.g. medical procedures. And that’s not disputed. The crux is whether a fetus is another person with interests. Roe used viability as the way to draw the line where a new individual is there to be protected, but the true logical and moral line is having a mind. Our minds are what make us persons.

 

Because the default was always expected to be max freedom for the people. The constitution would have to be 600,000 pages long, otherwise.

You have the right to eat broccoli
You have a right to play in the sandbox
You have the right to seek medical treatment
You have the right to draw a sunset

 

It is neither unique, nor an individual at the moment of conception. All it is, is a melding of cells and organisms. That happens 1000s and 1000s of times a day. In most every living creature on earth.

Some day in the future, if all things work as expected, will those cells and organisms transform into an individual.

 

Basically, we have the right to be who we want and act how we want, until we trample on some others' right to do as they want.
If we truly want freedoms and liberties.