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

Doctors or hospital can refuse patients.
But if they end up in an emergency situation in ER, they are not denied rights to treatment. Which is what I actually meant when people are not denied healthcare, I just wasn't explicit enough.

I have said for years, we have a legal definition of end of life, something similar can be adopted to beginning of life.
It's just looking for that line in the sand.

 

Pick most any dictionary.
No, they only provide definitions of words.
The legal world has their own definition of words that sometimes differ from dictionaries not related to law.

 

That was settled almost 50 yrs ago. Or it should have been.
A born person has rights. Which should take precedent over one not yet born.
The way it stands yet today, if there is a limit when abortion is not allowed but in rare circumstances those limits can be extended. Or if the pregnant woman gives the fetus rights by wanting to carry it to full term.

 

Great post. And I disagree. It attempts, it purports to cut off the argument; but it doesn't guarantee that, and every day we see that it does not. The scope and applicability of and exceptions to every single amendment to the constitution has been subject to dispute and litigation for centuries.

"I have a right to an abortion?"

"Where?"

"In the constitution."

"Where in the constitution? "

"In the penumbrae."

If you can come up with an argument like that that holds sway for 50 years without a specific grant of the right, then you don't need the Bill of Rights at all. Just say that there is no grant of police power over a woman's womb in the constitution and you'll have the same arguments we are having now. The government will say the power is implied just as pro abortionists say the right is implied. Who wins depends on the makeup of the court, in most instances.

Actually I don't think pro abortionists care whether it's in the constitution; they want access to abortion, period, up to birth, and "In a democracy, I should get what I want."

 

First a couple of stipulations. The Constitution doesn't create our fundamental rights, it prevents government from taking them from us or infringing upon them.
Second you are correct the whole question about a right to abortion has been up to question even since RvW which did not establish a right to abortion. But we can stipulate that there is a well established and clearly stated right to life. Our fundamental rights are establish in the Declaration of Independence and that clearly states

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, ......."

So lacking a clearly stated right for a mother to kill her unborn child for any reason that would trump a clearly and unequivocally stated fundamental inherent right to life we are all created with will not an easy task, logically, legally and constitutionally.

 

You were created with your right to life not born with.

 

I don’t see another way to approach this, if it is the thinking. If a woman’s body rejects a zygote, it is murder.

I mean, it’s either murder or it is not murder. We have to choose. It’s about 15%, which is greater than the % of abortions.

 

I've actually asked that question before as to whether or not it's still an abortion if the offspring survives and was intended to, and I've never gotten an answer, at least not one without support one way or the other.

I guess in the aspect that one can always ask, but there are banned procedures out there such as a Lithotomy, which is an old and banned procedure for removing bladder stones. If we were to have a procedure where the offspring could be removed without killing it AND it is equally or less bodily traumatic than an abortion, then we might see abortion banned, without a loss to the woman's bodily autonomy.

 

The standard was called the quickening, and was their version of viability, similar to the RvW decision. It was based upon the offspring frist moving within the womb. So it could go later than that time frame. There was no written absolute line as to when a woman could no longer get an abortion. Point still remains, it was not a crime, not like it was between the late 1860's and early 1970's.

 

To be fair, all rights have limits. I have a right to go where I want, but I cannot violate another person's private property rights. In the case of abortion, both the woman and the offspring would have bodily autonomy rights (assuming for the moment the unborn have rights, just for the example), but since the offspring is the one taking of her bodily resources, and assuming no consent from the woman, it is the one that has violated her rights first and as such its rights would be limited. All rights have their limits, and situations where they are overridden by other rights, and situations where they override other rights.

 

It still comes down to a matter of should the people have a vote on the matter. Should each state get to decide whether there is slavery or not? Whether women get to vote or not? Whether blacks can own property or not?

 

No, what people want should be determined by a small group of vociferous religious fanatics. The people be damned

There is no god and there is no soul and if you have to posit one or the other to justify what you want then THAT has NO place in a Democracy. We are governed by the American People, not the god-cursed Pope

NOBODY has ever posited that anyone should have to have an abortion if they don't want one, though I know plenty of conservatives et al who SHOULD have had one, or more.

And no, you DON"T need the Bill of Rights. MANY of the Constitution's writers said that it would very soon be said that those were the ONLY rights we have.

And that is EXACTLY what conservatives are arguing here.

The Constitution exists to PROTECT our Rights NOT to proscribe them. Everything not specifically permitted is NOT prohibited. The USA is not Legalist China

 

And yet isn't that what conservative, at least the more radical right, want to do with LBGT rights? Go back to a period where they were harassed and even killed with impunity?

 

Actually I am very on point with it. My whole point was that healthcare being a right doesn't mean that it is provided by the government. Now don't get me wrong, I do feel that it is within the legitimate purview of the government to provide it as it is for other things such as the post office, or the institution of marriage (legal only, not necessarily what any given religion would define it as). But the providing of it is not the right to healthcare.

We already established that a doctor can refuse to perform any given procedure that they do not agree with. Now that doesn't mean that they are allowed to deny access to the procedure. Meaning that if we did have government healthcare, a given doctor could refuse to perform an abortion, but they can't prevent the woman from going to a doctor who will do it. And yes someone must pay for it, as someone must pay for all the various expenses of the government. Part of that would come from tax and the rest from fees. Many of our government functions are paid for by fees.

That is correct except it is not what the pro abortionists want. They are not interested in the fetus' survival; they want the fetus to go away entirely. That's why they keep pushing the limit like with some states already allowing abortion right up to the moment of birth, many states allowing abortion after 7 even 8 months, and at least one state, Maryland IIRC, pushing for effective abortion up to two to four weeks after birth by calling for no criminal investigation or charges of a parent who simply lets a new born starve or freeze to death within some time limits.[/QUOTE]
That would be my state and I have heard of no such thing. So I would need you to back that up. I have a feeling that you might be misconstruing something as well. But you are incorrect as to what the pro-choice side is pushing for. Most pro-choice people are personally anti-abortion, meaning that they would not choose it for themselves, and might even try to talk, but not force, someone out of an abortion. What we push for is the woman's ability to choose. That doesn't mean that there are not radicals among us, but they are also among the pro-life crowd as well, with wanting to not allow abortion even to save the woman's life, or worse, investigate if not prosecute for miscarriages as well.

 

You are talking about issues that were decided by vote in congress, who passed laws, which is the electorate of the people.
Roe was decided by appointed judges, not the electorate.

 

You avoided the question. Either that or you are claiming that SCOTUS did not have the ability/right to have segregation declared unconstitutional because that issue was decided by states by the electorate. BTW, there are no national laws on abortion.

 

True, and I agree with you - it theoretically intends/attempts/purports to cut off, but I think the value, albeit imperfect, remains. I would rather have these roadblocks (or perhaps speed bumps would be a better analogy) in the Constitution than not at all.

That being said, I could be completely fatalistic about this and say it doesn't matter at all. Before he died, Antonin Scalia made the observation that the language in our laws - and I would add the Constitution to that - doesn't matter anymore. John Roberts made that clear when he engaged in an illegal/unconstitutional exercise in judicial tax writing, transforming an exaction that was explicitly defined as a penalty into a "tax" to declare the ObamaCare individual mandate "constitutional". Scala was right, and the implications are not good - if the language in our laws and Constitution don't matter, the rule of law in the United States ceases to exist. woe are no longer a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law, we are a banana republic governed by the arbitrary fiat of the people in Washington. If that's the case, and the social contract is broken, what's the point in having a federal government? What's the point in gong through the extravagantly expensive charade of pretending the language in our laws and Constitution matter?

I don't see the point, honestly, and that troubles me far more than this dispute over Roe and if there is right to support it. We are clearly in a gray area here, but we're not in a gray area when government official flat-out ignore the explicit language in our laws and Constitution. It's sad to even think about it, but I think it can be said that that the republic Benjamin Franklin and his colleagues gave us died on June 27, 2012. Oh well, 223 years was a pretty good run....

There's no question that many don't care whether or not it's in the Constitution and want access all the way up to birth, but not all of us do. There's no question that there are implicit rights that are manifested in the Constitution, e.g., the the right to self-defense that is at the root of the right to bear arms/the Second Amendment, and I made my case in the OP why and where I think it applies to terminating pregnancies precisely because I do care if there is a constitutional, rights-based argument to be made in its favor. If I didn't I wouldn't have taken the time to make it. Furthermore, since there is a point where the issue of abortion becomes a matter of competing/conflicting rights, I think the procedure should be regulated and restricted and access denied (save for the exception I noted) at a certain point.

As for the "In a democracy, I should get what I want" thing, it's clear that anti-abortionists believe that as well, and I've made my opposition to leaving matters concerning rights to mob rule clear. Again, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are from perfect, but we have them for a reason that is expressed in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence - to secure our rights.

 

Your right to life does not entitle you to another person's bodily resources. Otherwise I could take your blood or spare organs when needed to save my life.

 

99% of doctors would comply with such laws voluntarily without any need for enforcement.

 

It should also be noted that dictionaries are reactive not proscriptive. Dictionaries do not define words, they present the current (but lagged) use and definition of words. As words use and definition changes dictionaries update. They should both slang and archaic uses as well as update when a word goes from slang use to common use, such as the word "gay" did.

 

I am not avoiding the question. I am showing you are trying to make comparisons that don't make any sense. You want to compare laws provided by the electorate to a ruling from the SCOTUS.

First off, the SCOTUS is supposed to rule on constitutional issues. They are not a law making body. Roe should have never been heard by the Supreme court.
Which is the conversation the court is having. Those laws should be instituted by the states of which every state has abortion laws.

As far as segregation is concerned, the only people instituting it is blacks.
Would you like to count the number of black only schools, colleges, caucuses, TV shows, ect?
Or maybe you could provide the number of white only schools, colleges, caucuses, and TV shows.

 

No doubt.

And not just gays..

 

LOL.

Stop.

 

The outrage over the proposed SCOTUS ruling is based on a lot of misconceptions. First is that nothing in the legal system is absolute. Even Roe v Wade recognized that point. It allowed abortions up until end of the second trimester but placed limits on abortions in the third trimester. Yet, many liberals and abortion doctors have ignored that fact. They advocate and practice late-term abortions. Which is not constitutionally protected by the Roe v Wade ruling.

Additionally, if you read the decision issued in 1973 by the SCOTUS you will see the word "viability". Which is what this argument is really about. In 1973, the ruling was based on the science as it stood then. The SCOTUS put the "viability" of the fetus at the end of the second trimester. Yet, science has involved. The second trimester ends at the 26th week (6 months, half of 52 weeks.) Yet, in this link, you will see eight children that has been born after the 1973 decision. Seven of which were born after less than the 26-week window. Some were born after only 21 weeks. So, doesn't that move the "viability" threshold? But science has not stopped there. They have shown that when a fetus develops nerves. They know at that point that a fetus can react to pain, and even move to avoid pain. That would expand the question from viability to "when is killing the fetus considered cruel and unusual punishment? Then there is the whole, "when does life begin?" question. Federal and state judicial systems already recognize that a fetus, at the time of conception, is living. A murder can be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman. Some prosecutors try to put limits based on the woman's intent, but that is not a judicial wide standard. The fact is that the murder does not have to know the woman was pregnant, and the woman herself does not have to know that she is pregnant. If the woman's autopsy finds that she is pregnant, the murder can be charged with two counts of murder. Therefore, the courts already recognize that a fetus is a life. What the proposed SCOTUS ruling states that the issue of limits on abortions should not be decided by the Legislative branches. Without a federal standard, the states can decide for themselves. This is why the Democrats want to codify the Roe v Wade standards, but it is not going to be as easy as that. This is not a budget law. So, the nuclear option does not apply. They will need all the Democrats to agree to one standard, and a number of Republicans willing to go along with them. That is not going to happen before the new Legislature is seated in January. Absent a supermajority, both sides are going to have negotiate before a law can be passed. I do not see that happening anytime too soon. Therefore, state laws will be the standard.

Another area where the laws are not absolute is in the area of a right to Privacy. The Roe v Wade ruling was based on the right to a woman's right to self-determination of her own body. But that is not absolute. A woman does not have the right to commit suicide. A woman can decide for herself who to have sex with, but a woman that is HIV positive cannot have unprotected sex without disclosing that she has the disease. Otherwise, she could be charged with attempted murder. Further, she decides when and who to have sex with. There are steps that she, and her partner(s) can take to limit the potential of getting pregnant. But when she chooses to share her body, then she has to take on certain responsibilities of that action. That includes accepting responsibility for the life that is created. When a life is created, murdering it is not an acceptable solution. So, the legislatures are responsible to determine at what point an abortion is actually a murder.

 

And they belong to the states. 10th amendment.