Agreed. The SC does not legislate, nor may they effectively legislate under the guise of a ruling. Had there been a strong, unambiguous constitutional basis in the Roe case, the SC could have struck down the Texas law as being unconstitutional and left it at that. But instead, the 1973 SC asserted that the 14th Amendment provided for a heretofore unknown "right of privacy" (effectively legislating such a right), and it declared (effectively legislating) that abortions could not be restricted in the first trimester, could be somewhat regulated in the second trimester, and that abortions may be prohibited in the third trimester. With regard to the ruling on the third trimester, it seems to be clear that even that 1973 Court recognized the right to life of an unborn child at some point prior to birth, a fact that is often forgotten when people talk about the Roe case.
No Seth. Prior SC rulings have concluded that all women have a basic right to have an abortion. That they, and they alone have the right to terminate their own pregnancy(abortion). And, that this right was INTERPRETED by the Justices, as a protected right under the privacy and due process clauses in the Constitution. These Justices did not nit-pick the semantics of an almost 240 yo document. They interpreted the implied and implicit meaning of its framers. It is NOT just the 14th Amendment that concerns itself with privacy and due process Seth. You know in your heart, that the state should not force any woman to bear a child, once they are pregnant. You instinctively know that this decision should always be a matter of individual choice.
Since so many maternal deaths were occurring in states where abortions were banned, a level playing field had to be created(duty of care), to protect all women seeking abortions. The states were still allowed to regulate abortions. But not to the point where the regulations prevented, prohibited, or imposed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. This is exactly what the Texas and Mississippi abortion laws have done. They want to go back to the pre-Roe days, where all abortions were banned. As well as in other states where religious fantasies can dictate government policy.
The abortion debate is not only about a woman's choice and a woman's privacy. It is also about the rights of an unborn. As I pointed out above, even the 1973 SC Roe decision recognized that. And, as I mentioned before, if everyone agreed on when that right to life begins, there would be no debate over abortion. The real question is not a woman's choice or her privacy. The real question, the crux of the whole debate, is when does an unborn have a right to life, liberty, and equal protection? At conception? When it has a heartbeat? At the start of the 3rd trimester? When it is viable outside the womb? Or not until it is actually born? Intelligent people who know the science of fetal development can and do disagree on this question. At what point do we value the fetal entity as an equal to people who are already born? This is what the whole debate is about.
I am speaking from a biological/scientific perspective. Once we start debating from the metaphysical realm of reasoning, the well becomes bottomless. Since embryos develop at different rates, viability will always vary. But there are obvious physical indicator that can be observed to determine future fetal viability.
From this perspective, life can be characterized as an autonomous(non-symbiotic), and independent living organism. An organism that has the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond(to stimuli), adapt, and able to reproduce. No embryo or unviable fetus has these capacities. The embryo depends totally on its host. The embryo is the opposite of a viral parasite. A virus is not alive until it can find a host. And, an embryo is not alive, until it can leave a hosts.
As I've said before. The real question is about choice. If women do not have a choice to have an abortion, then the the question of trimesters, when life and rights begin, are all irrelevant. So, we must start there first!
It really doesn't matter what I think. Let me explain why. Let's say you find out your wife is being unfaithful to you. So you decide how and when to murder her, and you do it. You end up getting prosecuted and going to trial. At trial, you argue that murdering your wife was a choice that you were entitled to make because it was your marriage and she was unfaithful, and that you have a right to privacy in your personal marital affairs. Now obviously, that defense won't work. Why? The answer is that your wife was a human being - a person - who was entitled to life. We can all agree on that. So your right to privacy and liberty to murder your wife is trumped by the fact that your wife was a person who was entitled to life.
It does matter what you think. Your opinions can influence the opinions of others. Do you really want me to show you just how flawed(and illogical) this murdering your wife, and having a right to an abortion analogy really is? Please take another look at why this mix of examples is a non-sequitur.
We also all agree that at some point from conception to post-birth, a child is entitled to life, regardless of whether the mother agrees. The crux of the debate is when that entitlement to life begins.
So to answer your question directly, no. It is not strictly an issue of the privacy and liberty of the mother. The biggest issue - the entire crux of the debate - is when the unborn have a right to life, liberty, and equal protection under the law.
Again NO Seth! I do not agree that at some point between conception(which can't be known), and the moment the fetus takes its first breath, that it is entitled to life. I only agree that the second the fetus becomes viable, or it takes its first breath outside of the womb, that it becomes a child. And, thus should have the right to life, and equal protection under the law.
Also, this is only a privacy and liberty issue. The exact moment when an embryo/fetus becomes viable, or the exact moment life begins, are all nothing but distractions and deflections. Because these are metaphysical questions, that no human could know the answer to. But should all women have the right to an abortion, or the freedom to control their own reproductive system, are questions that could easily be addressed. Either women should have the choice, or not. Or, the government should have the choice, or not. It's not that complicated.
I think it does matter. When we start having our courts grant "implicit" rights, we are allowing them to effectively "legislate" rights. Perhaps the starkest example of why this must not be allowed was the argument that the slave owners used in the lead-up to the Civil War. They asserted that the efforts of the North to end slavery were an assault upon their property rights, as slaves were thought to be "property". The Dred Scott decision of 1857 bolstered that "implicit" right to own other human beings by deciding that people of African descent were not citizens of the U.S. and that they were not entitled to the protections and rights enumerated in the Constitution. Although nothing in the Constitution ever said that only people of the white race may be citizens of the U.S., the Supreme Court, in effect, legislated from the bench, creating white-only citizenship, and denying basic constitutional protections to people based upon race. This ruling didn't create rights, but instead, effectively legislated a denial of rights to a certain class of people. Unquestionably, this was a good example of judicial overreach, and it serves as an example of the perils of allowing 9 unelected people to effectively legislate our laws. It also serves as an example of why I prefer "originalist" judges over "activist" or "living document" judges.
Why do you keep saying that the SC Justices are legislating laws(effectively or otherwise)? This is just a lie. Either show me where they are legislating laws(not your suppositions), or please stop saying this. Firstly, lets define what is implicitly stated in the constitution. Any issue that refers to something that is
understood, but not described clearly or directly, but is often
implied or assumed. This is what the Justices use to interpret current social issue. Simply stating that the issue is not explicitly stated, is just not good enough. Clearly society was much different back then.
Regarding the slavery issue, just look at the 3 reconstruction amendments that came out after the civil war. This included EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW for everyone born in the US. As well as everyone born in the US becoming automatic citizens of the US. I agree with you about the Dred Scott's decision by the Court of the time. The Dred Scott's decision was a rare decision by the Court, that was later characterized as the Court's "greatest self-inflicted wound". It was wrong from the beginning. Now how is abortion rights for women directly related to this mistake? What other irrelevant examples are you going to posit as another distraction?
Shell, which is it? No longer unborn, or a viable unborn?
Don't answer that. Whatever your answer would be doesn't matter. Here's the point:
That is the crux of the whole debate. When do the unborn have a right to life, liberty, and equal protection? That is the entire debate. And the answers to that are opinions. And those opinions run the entire gamut.
This has been asked and answered. The moment the unborn becomes born(takes its first breath) it has the right to life, liberty, and equal protection. The rest is just smoking mirrors and distractions. Remember, if women do not have a right or freedom to have an abortion, then the argument of when life begins is mute and irrelevant! If women don't have a right to an abortion, then what does it matter when life begins??
There is no authoritative, undeniable, supreme truth that can answer that question. And since God Himself is not going to suddenly appear in person and make the call, we are left with our opinions, and we may vote, and we may legislate. That's as good as it gets. Is it perfect? No. Because "perfect" would mean that we all agree, and that is not going to happen - not ever.
Again, you are just trying to complicate a very simple issue. Similar to prolife people characterizing prochoice people as pro-death people. I'm not looking for the supreme or undeniable truth, just the simple and obvious truth. Should the sex that gestates, bears, and raises the child, have the right not to? Either you believe they shouldn't or you believe that they should. I don't see this rationale as being ambiguous or ecclesiastical. I'd like to think, that we are trying to reason here. Not simply giving our opinions.
Yes, they can under the Roe decision, after a point (the start of the third trimester).
Only in very special circumstances. Also, less than 1% of all abortions occur in the 3rd trimester. The logical assumption would be, that women carrying the fetus this long, don't really want an abortion. But for many reasons require medical intervention. Again, just more misinformation that lack context or clarity.
My opinions on that fall in the middle. I am opposed to banning all abortions, and I am opposed to aborting babies after a point.
Good. But that's not what I asked you. Do you think that women should have the
right to choose to terminate their own pregnancy(prochoice)? Or do you think that the State should decide this for them?
