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

I think what is going to show is how unpopular this move will be

 

It comes from the right to self defense.

 

Hi, Talon.

I've no opinion as yet. I'm searching for facts at this point.

I assume that you are considering the legal authority of states [as opposed to federal] legislatures to regulate abortions derives from the section of the Constitution of the United States of America which defers to the states for all powers not specifically given to the federal government. That would also bar the federal government from either approving or banning abortions in any way. Is my understanding of your position correct?

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Hi, MJ Davies.

The real world certainly has a bad habit of showing up at unexpected moments at the doorsteps of ivory towers, and that's the truth.

The real world contains people desperately seeking solutions to problems they find overwhelming. Under that level of stress, the law takes a back seat.* As a humanist, I'm concerned with any unnecessary death. 'Backroom abortions' can result in the deaths of pregnant women at levels which far exceed that of abortions performed in modern hospitals.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

* It doesn't take much stress for people to break the law, depending on which law is involved. The vast majority, at least 95%, of American drivers routinely exceed the posted speed limits on our roads and highways for very little reason and certainly while under no great stress.

 

are not natural rights like autonomy and privacy endowed by the creator?

rgw new louisiana law prosecutes the abortionist, the woman, and anyone aiding or assisting, like the proverbial uber driver.

 

If it were men who got pregnant there wouldn’t even be a thought about overturning RvW. Men wouldn’t stand for someone telling them what they can or can’t do with their own body.

 

yeah yeah, and those that have had miscarriages. The sky is falling.

We get it.

 

Agreed. Many of the people standing on this bandwagon have no idea how many lives this will cost our society.

They don't even want to acknowledge the simple fact that the law can't mandate love, care or concern for one's offspring. I'm living proof. My mother told me countless times that she should have aborted me and my father has given me a weapon and told me to abort myself. Yes, they provided for me with food, clothing and shelter but have hated me my entire life and never let me forget the only reason I was there was the government required them to provide for me. I was one of the lucky ones. I didn't get in trouble with the law, didn't turn to alcohol, drugs and/or promiscuity. Countless others didn't avoid those negative coping traps and they are the ones this type of overreach hurts the most.

It's lost on them that ignoring a desperate mother-to-be's pain and heartache at having to face an unwanted pregnancy combined with the shame and blame is the worst possible outcome for a newborn baby. Many of those "precious little lives" will face all kinds of unimaginable pain and hurt and the cycle will continue and more lives will be lost for no reason other than ignorance and apathy. It's nothing but a tragedy.

 

The right to abortion comes from the same place all the other rights of humans come from.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

I do not believe that there is a right to an abortion in and of itself. That is to say that the right that does exist, grants by extension, under the current level of medical knowledge and technology, the ability to get an abortion, but that is the result of a right, not the right itself.

The basis that Roe should have been decided upon was that of bodily autonomy, not privacy. By that right a person who can get pregnant has a right to end the pregnancy. Note that I did not say they have a right to an abortion. Right now abortion is the only safe method, pre-viability, by which to have the pregnancy ended. However, should somehow a procedure be developed which is of equal or less physical trauma to the body as an abortion, the abortion procedure could be gotten rid of without a violation of bodily autonomy.

Keep in mind that if there are multiple safe procedures available, the person who is pregnant has the right to choose which procedure they will have. That is also part of bodily autonomy. But in the end, the only actual right is one to have the pregnancy ended. Anything beyond that is a result of the right not a separate right in and of itself.

 

But they do not make you carry that child in the man's body. That's the key difference. Remember that once a child is born, the state also imposes upon the woman the same financial responsibility.

 

And so- a sperm or an egg are half-individuals and we have no right to interfere with the purpose and destiny of them. Arguments can get silly- or just fail to recognize all the realities involved.

The vast majority of what could become unique individuals never does, and part of that is because conditions and timing aren't right for that unique individual to develop with any hope of entering a nurturing environment and becoming successful. Nature aborts many millions of such potential individuals for just that reason, so that those who are developed will be better equipped to enhance their society and species rather than burden and plague it. In a perfect world that might be different, but there never has been a perfect world.

Consider a woman who might have several successful children- provided they arrive in a time where the conditions exist to allow them to thrive.
That same woman might abort a pregnancy when those conditions were hopeless, but continue to have the same number of children when they were sound. The difference is in the quality of life for all involved,
and what that contributes to the future of life for the entire society.

We are very selective about the value of life; anyone who hinges their argument on that one thing defines it as life they approve of. They eat the flesh of animals deprived of life to .make their meal pleasing, they deprive the life of things that annoy them- bugs, snakes..... and often, people who's property or freedom they covet. Some lives are more valuable than others. I think that the quality of life is something of vlaue too, something to be desired and something we should do our best to insure.

Every person involved in the breeding of animals breeds selectively to improve the quality of the species they raise- only humans fail in this regard.....and reduce the qualities of our species as a result. Charles Darwin recognized that in his writings long ago. Recognized that it is the quality of life and the conditions of it's beginnings that produces the viability and success of a species, that enables them to thrive.

IF we want life to thrive, each human being to thrive, we need to bring them to the best possible environment for that to happen. A nurturing one, where the means of support, the care of the parents and the conditions existing are things that lift them up, not cripple their chances. In the case of the human species, bad timing can produce hardships for both parent and offspring that alters the quality of life for the entire lifetime of both. Sometimes we make a wrong turn, and we correct it. If we refuse to, we often wind up in places and conditions we never wanted to be in.
It's of course a very difficult question, with consequences either way... but a decision that only one person has the right to decide.

 

The ability of the state regulating the procedure itself is different from regulating who can get the procedure, which is not a legitimate authority of the state. Furthermore, banning a procedure which is the safest option, is also not within the legitimate authority.

 

For all intents and purposes, I agree with your general sentiment, which is why I am pro the notion of abortion being legal. I truly believe that it should be an option available, at least until a late point in the pregnancy when the fetus could be viable outside of the womb

With that being said, I wholeheartedly believe that the interpretation of the Constitution put forth in Roe V Wade is nonsensical and without merit. I further believe that an activist court in general that reads into the Constitution whatever they want it to say is inherently bad for our society because it is far outside of the intent of our framers when creating our union of states. I would much prefer for each individual state legislature to make this determination for themselves, which according to the principle of a democratically elected representative government, would be a reflection of their constituents within their respective states. It is my belief that this method is the true intent of our founders which is what the USSC is supposed to be upholding.

What is your opinion on Roe v Wade in the context of judicial activism in general? Do the ends justify the means in your book?

 

Hello once again.

I can make no comment on your post quoted above. It stands as it does, a statement which I hope many will read.

Regards, and best wishes to you and yours.

 

The problem with your erudite post is that it makes the same error the court made in 1973. You are arguing that the SCOTUS should make a ruling based on what 9 unelected people in black robes deem as ethical, moral, or a natural right thing to do -- known as rule by man On the other hand the SCOTUS was set up solely to act as an appellate court in interpreting whatever the laws or Constitution say -- known as rule by law. The Roe v. Wade ruling was a rule of man, and clearly and obviously not a rule by law. It is the latter that Alito means by our nation's tradition and is an essential foundation for a constitutional republic.

 

And who do you think creates laws?

 

Of course, the courts rule on the case challenges as presented, which tends to dictate the basis and direction. Most people I know agree that the R vs W decision was poorly based and stated because of this. Had the question been more to the point and fundamental, the ruling would be much plainer. Personally- I hate the creation of complex, ambiguous laws, because nobody can play the game when they can't understand the rules. The entire constitution is only about 4500 words, but the laws we make based in them become incomprehensible monsters.

I don't think the court has the authority to arbitrarily rule on any issue except in regard to a case in question. It's there to resolve issues based on challenges to law, not create the challenge.

One thing for sure- all legal process must be responsible to the laws as written, not the pressures of various interests. If it is not- the loudest voices become the law, and the legal process only their tool.
We've seen a lot of such pressure in the last few years- and unfortunately a lot of success for those using it. Like all rules- if they are not correctly upheld and enforced equally, they are no longer rules at all, just cosmetics. It's reasonable to say a primary law such as the constitutional amendments should be changed, but until it is, that law stands as written. Congress of course, tends to dodge controversial issues, and tends to bend to the squeaking wheel regardless of the fitness of the demands.

I agree with your position of moderation. Some want the window of abortion availability to be as little as 6 weeks- which might as well be zero. Others would set it at 9 months, total viability. I think that process of confirming a pregnancy and weighing the issues and options take time, but it would be reasonable to say that should be limited. In my view- 6 months, would be certainly adequate, which is to say there should be no third-trimester abortions. The transition from fetus to viability is approached then; the situation changes.

 

Congress is the only body authorized to make federal laws. To wit,
Article I, Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.[emphasis mine]

 

Once again, I think that you and I are mostly in agreement.

All factors considered, despite the fact that you support legal abortion, do you see the potential repeal of Roe v Wade as a step in the right direction because it is faulty law?

For me, I see it as a step in the right direction, and I have supreme confidence that everyone that wants an abortion will still be able to get one, albeit in some cases with a few more obstacles in the way. I personally think the sky is falling charade is misplaced.

 

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

Be definition something can be a right if the person exercising it views it as a right and if it doesn't impact anyone other than the person exercising it. Abortion certainly impacts someone else. Hence it cannot be a right. It is a privilege and a legal indulgence.

The rights enumerated in the bill of rights all fit the definition. Things like abortion or government paid health care don't qualify. They may be accepted activities but they aren't rights.

 

Wrong!

It isn't a matter of a "woman's body" when an unborn child is involved. No one has the "right" to take someone else's life.

Murder still happens and it is illegal. (Of course it is the murder of someone after they are born) so that is no reason to legalize murder of already born people. So why is the murder of unborn people legal?

 

How does the state find out someone is selling drugs?

 

Abortion and healthcare are rights.

 

Thanks for posting an opinion with no reasoning behind it.