I'm only a layman, so PvF and Brown I've read about, not the others. My example of an unenumerated right we all possess that has never been legislated is the right to walk down the beach at sunset. I'm from Florida So I find particularly persuasive is Madison's claim that an exhaustive listing of rights is impossible. The beauty of the Ninth is that it states the obvious, and it's but one sentence. Logically elegant IMO. Thank you for explaining the Fourth perspective. It is logical IMO.
Of course they don't, and we can see that easily by the fact that a woman cannot terminate her unborn offspring that is gestating inside a surrogate's womb, or after it is out of their own womb. The termination of the offspring is a result of the exercise of a right, but not a right in and of itself. If it was a right to terminate the offspring, even if limited to pre-birth, then it could be done at any time and under any circumstance, which is obviously not the case.
I accept that regarding states powers, but the 14th Amendment demands that state law does not violate the USC. If a state says a woman cannot do as she wishes with her own body, that law would violate the USC.
Yes, we must distinguish in all discussion between rights and powers. The people possess the former, and the government is granted the latter BY THE PEOPLE. We surrender certain rights so that the government can have specific, enumerated powers. Yes, in passing the Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment Congress recognized it did not have the power to tell the citizen what he could and couldn't do with consuming alcohol. Thus the 18th prohibited the manufacture, sale or transportation of alcohol. It did not prohibit consumption. In the case of abortion, as with alcohol, the federal government has no legitimate authority to tell the woman what she must do with her body. Neither has any church. Any laws the state governments pass must honor the spirit and letter of the US Constitution.
Lawrence is the decision that effectively made homosexual activity legal since it upheld that the state could not invade privacy to find such. Obergefell was the decision that made same sex marriage legal. Actually you do not have that right, at least not as a constitutionally protected right. Maybe by the state, but I am willing to bet that there are still restricted beach areas that the public is not supposed to walk on at any time of day, or even with time restrictions. You can argue that you have the right to walk in a public park, but many I know of are closed between dusk and dawn. It's not as impossible as it might initially seem, as a given single right can cover much ground and many situations. In looking at the topic at hand, the right of bodily autonomy covers many things including organ donation, abortion, sexual activity and so much more. We don't need a right to engage in sex with whom we wish and a separate right to have a pregnancy ended, and yet another to be able to donate blood or organs. The single right of bodily autonomy should do it. But on the other side of the coin, I don't have the right to drive a car on a public road. The state might not be allowed to deny you based on being a certain race or sex or religion, but that doesn't mean that the privilege has to be granted in general. Thank you.
Abortions did not become illegal until the 1860's, and for most of the states, that didn't happen until the mid to late 60's. Abortions were an accepted part of life from the colonial days up until that point.
As long as that other human being is not taking of her bodily resources without her consent, we are in agreement.
Some seem to think it is when they don't want her to get a hysterotomy or tubal ligation. Many doctors will refuse unless a husband clears it, or on the basis that a future husband might want children.
@Maquiscat Over the years I've had several LEO explain to me their perspective on beach access. And yes, Florida does have laws concerning that, and they are very liberal. Property rights cannot extend beyond the dune line, for example. A hotel can 'own' the beach property, but beyond the dune line any and all persons have access to the beach. Various state parks exist on the beaches, and there are rules there, but as far as I know, every state park can be accessed by walking down the beach, whether the park is open or not. I've asked LEO friends if a person can be ordered out of the water "for his own safety" and they say he cannot be ordered out of the water, unless of course he is wanted under some warrant. I do appreciate and agree with your perspective on bodily autonomy.
You're making a false premise argument here. Many pro-choice people are personally anti-abortion, but they hold a firm belief that women get the choice to have the offspring or to have an abortion. It doesn't matter that the choice might be opposite of what they want. A pro-abortion type is one who wants abortions to happen, which is not the same as wanting them to be allowed in case someone choses to have one.
Interpretation and how far you twist the right to privacy can turn into different outcomes. Moral issues...which is what abortion is...rightfully is left to states. In Roe vs wade...a woman's right to do what she wanted with her body was not established as even after that ruling it was considered constitutional for the state to restrict a woman's right to abortion after the baby was a certain gestation. So there is zero legal ruling that a woman has complete control of her body when another human life is involved.
That is with regards to others as well, though. As the saying goes, the right to swing our fist ends where my nose begins. What makes the argument to allow for abortion is the fact that the offspring is the offspring taking bodily resources from the woman. If she is not consenting to this, even if it is because she withdrew consent, then the offspring becomes the violator. If the woman were to do anything to the offspring when it is outside of her body, then she becomes the violator of the offspring's bodily autonomy rights, with in the reasons laid out for care of the offspring.
One would like to think that both federal and state legislatures were driven by a moral compass, by knowing the difference between right and wrong. Alas, reality has proved otherwise too many times. In that light, no there are no legal rulings establishing that a woman has right to her body. Legislative bodies are not known for their morality, but certain of the constitutional amendments like the 14th suggest they are capable of that. It's just very rare.
That may be specific to your state. I do know that many other areas and states do have such restrictions. It's becomes a matter of right verse permitting. Being permitted to do something doesn't mean that it's a right.
Interestingly enough, while the woman doesn't have the legal ability to get an abortion after viability, there is nothing, AFAIK, that prevents her from having induced labor after viability has been reached. In the end, both methods accomplish what the woman's right is, and that is the ending of the pregnancy.
I don't think I've ever argued the legality or illegality of abortion, I've argued the morality of abortion. I don't argue for control of women having abortions through law. What matters to me is the immorality of abortion. I'm not advocating FORCING women to do anything. If I'm asked by her about abortion I'll give her my advice but will love and support her whatever her decision, before and after, and I'd do the same for my daughter and grand daughters.
States make laws that state women cannot have abortion after a certain gestation. Inducing labor early is abortion...if it puts fetus at risk ...and doctors and Hospitals won't do it unless woman's life is at risk.. It's not an option unless a woman goes under the radar to an illegal facility..
Which amendment defines "body autonomy" rights? Killing a fetus because mommy feels yucky isn't covered in the Constitution. Life, is an inalienable right; only certain conditions can we abridge that right.
Read the Declaration of Independence; it defines "LIFE, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" as INALIENABLE RIGHTS . there are myriad methods of preventing pregnancy; and, yes, none are 100% effective, but nothing in life is.
My point doesn't deal with the legality or illegality either. Which ultimately makes you a pro-choice person. You advocate that the woman gets the choice, even while personally trying to persuade her not to have the abortion. The key component of pro-choice is not what one tries to persuade the woman to do or not do, or even if they try any persuasion, but whether or not she gets to make that choice. Pro-abortion is not the same as pro-choice, because of that key component. The term pro-abortion is that one would pushing for the abortion whether the woman wanted it or not. Your false premise is in labeling those who are pro-choice as being pro-abortion. Legality doesn't enter into that aspect.
Abortion is a completely different procedure from induced labor. You are welcomed to show me otherwise though. Now, my point does not include any willingness of a medical provider to perform the procedure. Abortion could be 100% legal at all stages, but if there is not a single doctor who is willing to perform the procedure, the woman's rights are still intact. No one has the right to the services of another. They only have the right to seek to engage in barter with them, including barter for money.
