Topic: Abortion Right to Life vs Right to Control Your Body

[jomike]

Which is where my problem is, because other later courts could 'infer' that they are mistaken and take those 'rights' away.  If you want it to be a 'right' pass a constitutional amendment and make it a right, or ensconce it in law and move on.  By 'inferring' rights, you cannot complain when the OTHER side infers a 'right to life' of the fetus and does things like make comparisons to requiring you to pay child support and care properly for your child and then extends that 'right' to a fetus of X weeks old.

I'm not sure the process by which the courts discern what is and isn't constitutionally protected is quite so arbitrary; there's certainly more to it than casual inference.  And for all the recent hollering about renegade justices legislating from the bench and so forth, it's nevertheless true that precedent still is a big deal -- like, binding, and stuff.

Now, whereas a right of privacy is a well-established doctrine based on ninety years of case law, the right to life of an embryo is nowhere to be found, neither directly in the text of the Constitution nor indirectly in any subsequently-developed doctrine.  (Thus the "personhood" amendment initiatives in various statehouses over the last couple years.)

If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that abortion ought not fall within the realm of personal privacy.  Fair enough, but the problem is that if such a distinction is to be made, it must have a non-arbitrary, legally sound basis.  The state recognizes a right of privacy, including a general right to do as one pleases with one's body; thus, the state must have a compelling interest in order to to preempt citizens' right of privacy.  In Roe, the court ruled that "...(t)hough the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term," and employed the trimester framework to that end.

"But," you protest, "that's the whole point -- Roe was wrongly decided!"  Okay, I get that, but the thing is, even if you overturned Roe tomorrow, the right of privacy still would remain, and the state still would have to come up with a compelling, non-arbitrary justification in order to preempt that right.  (Public polling and appeals to emotion and so forth still wouldn't cut it, Roe or no.)  Other ways around that would be to add a "personhood" amendment to the Constitution, or else do away with the right of privacy doctrine, as conservatives such as Robert Bork would have it.

[seaotter]

Except your son has rights, and you can give up parental rights.

I can, but until I do, and can get a court to approve it, I'm still a slave by your definition, and you completely ignored the tax one.

Taxes are authorized by the same constitution.

[Vincegamer]

Again somewhere in the neighborhood of half women getting abortions were using birth control.

The women is forced to work for the fetus by circumstance. Slave. And your analogy makes it contract.

By that comparison, I should be able to kill off my 3 year old.  I'm a slave to that 3 year old, because by law I'm required to care for the 3 year old.

Also, I'm forced to pay taxes too, therefore that makes me a Slave to the government......

I never would have expected you to be using PETA's arguments.

[Johnny Slick]

I gave a long list of places. Ninth amendment then 13th, and now the fifth since the right to life and liberty cover abortion nicely.

Those say nothing about abortion.

I think you are mistaken. Particularly the ninth amendment and the thirteenth.

Yep.   Since the 1920s the Supreme Court has affirmed through a series of disparate decisions a general right of privacy.  It's well-settled doctrine, much to the chagrin of people like Robert Bork and George Will.  (Not to mention popular.  Because without it, the gov't still would be able to specify, among other things, whether johnsons may be encased in latex, and which orifices said johnsons may be inserted.)  Roe v Wade extended that right of privacy to include uteruses (uteri?) containing embryos that have implanted themselves therein.

Yeah, good point. Regardless of what the Constitution can be interpreted to say or not say, the fact is that established US law states that there is a right to privacy and that it extends to abortion. I think that the desire to cite the Constitution itself is understandable given the fact that it's easy to look up and read, but ultimately the Constitution is the basis of the law, not the law itself. We have people whose job it is to research case law in this society for a reason.

[seaotter]

Basic reason I'm pro choice.

#1 is that I think everyone should have control of their own body no matter what.
#2 the studies that show abortion rates in places that have strict abortion laws vs those with liberal laws, when adjusted for other factors, show similar rates of abortions, and the pre post roe states in the USA show the same pattern. Legal abortions with healthy women or comparable illegal abortions with dozens of dead women and thousands of hospitalizations.

I've got other reasons but these are the two big ones in my mind.

[Vincegamer]

just for clarification I'll pose the contra-factual:
hypothetically if a ban on abortion actually reduced abortion rates without a rise in abortion-related deaths, then you would be for banning abortion?

[seaotter]

No. The most important thing to me is right to control your body, but I find it difficult to understand a ban given the apparent ineffectualness of those statistics.

[moj]

This is one of the few political arguments where I think there is a clear right and wrong. Pro lifers are wrong, and suspect they know they are wrong, but think they think it’s OK to be wrong if it’s for the greater good. They are trying to save a life, as they claim. The reality is never that simple or clear cut but as many others have said leads to degrading the rights of woman and propitiating poverty. Pro lifers, stay out of other people’s pants and doctor’s offices, geez.

[SVoid]

Beleth choosing to help would seem to be a nessisary first step in your justification of forcing women to continue the pregnancy.

Right, she never decided. So can't be held to continue it.

She didn't decide to have the embryo attach to her uterine wall because that's an event that happens automatically. No decision required.
What she most likely did choose to do is allow the events that would lead to an embryo attaching to her uterine wall to happen.
There are numerous ways to keep that from happening.
I realize that only one of them (abstinence) is 100% foolproof, so other variables need to be considered.
The key point in all this, though, is that in no case is it the embryo's fault, so it is unreasonable on its face to hold the embryo accountable.

In the analogy of the violinist (because I know it's going to come up), the party who is at fault is the party who made the decision to connect the violinist to the unwilling donor. It is that party who should be held accountable, not only for the violinist's life, but for the pain and suffering caused to the donor. And it is that party who should bear all due restitution and punishment.

You think we should punish the woman the egg implants on? Up to and including potentially her death while delivering?

I have to back him up here. He pointed out in reply to this comment the driving analogy: there is no reason to withhold medical treatment for someone in a car accident because that is a natural risk of being on the road.

You can take percautions to prevent pregnancy. For some people abortion is a last step, a back up plan, if the several plans before that fail. You can't arbitrarily withhold that medical procedure.

What you seem to be arguing is that the embryo should have some right. A right that from the moment of implantation superseeds the rights of a another person. I think it's dangerous to make up rights. But more, I think it's dangerous to say that the rights of others trump your own rights to your own body.

Some say "your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins." But this is not true for unwanted advances. If a woman being sexually assaulted (eg. raped) punches out her assailant I doubt she would be found guilty of a crime. Because she has the right to use force.

You argument is like saying if she agreed to kiss him she can't reject having sex. Actually, I take that back. I don't think your egg analogy would let it progress like that. But the point is because she did one thing it doesn't mean she wants the next.

And sex is like this as well. Your egg analogy falls apart because if you drop an egg you will get a smashed egg. But if you have sex you will not get a child. For one, conception doesn't always occur. Timing, fertility (man & woman), the pill and other factors take account. Half of all implantations result in spontaneous, natural abortion. I find it hard to get upset about an abortion at 4 weeks any more than a natural, spontaneous abortion.

She you can't say she's on the hook for something OTHER THAN SEX when she decides to engage in sex. In the same way that she is not on the hook for anything other than cuddling when she decides to cuddle. In the same sense that someone crossing the road isn't on the hook for the consequences of his actions. We don't say "you choose to step out on to the road, so we will withhold this medical treatment for you." The ER room is simply a last line of defence. Like abortion.

Summary

If you want to argue against abortion don't say that women should be punished or they don't have a right. Try to come up with a non-arbitrary right that a clump of undifferentiated cells have.

If you want to say "so it's okay to abort a minute before both" calm down, look at the statistics, and notice that this doesn't happen and isn't worth talking about. If you want to say that there should be legal limits on abortions then see above and come up with a sound, non-arbitrary law about person hood or something.

[seaotter]

Can one state define what a person is?

[SVoid]

Can one state define what a person is?

I think your question is can a US state take it upon themselves to define a person, and then apply all laws relating to people to whatever they define as a person. I.e., can they define a fertilized egg or computer intelliegence as a 'person' and then apply homicide charges to abortions or formatting the computer.

That I don't know. The 14th Amendment says you can't take away a right granted by the federal government. But I don't think there anything that says you can't expand it. But that's really an uninformed opinion.