14th Amendment

[redbeer]

The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.

Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.

I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.

 

[Loulit01]

You have not made a valid point. Try again.

 

[redbeer]

You have not made a valid point. Try again.

They say the unborn have 'no' rights because they are not mentioned, then turn around and use the phrase, "my body, my choice". Claiming that phrase means the unborn inside the woman is part of her body, then needless to say the unborn have the same rights as the mother, because it's part of her body.

Deny the obvious contradiction is willful blindness. Try again.

 

[Loulit01]

They say the unborn have 'no' rights because they are not mentioned, then turn around and use the phrase, "my body, my choice". Claiming that phrase means the unborn inside the woman is part of her body, then needless to say the unborn have the same rights as the mother, because it's part of her body.

Deny the obvious contradiction is willful blindness. Try again.

There is no obvious contradiction. You're oversimplifying and relying on semantics.

The overwhelming number of abortions occur when the fetus is a bunch of non-sentient cells with little differentiation. To say they have the same rights as a human is ridiculous.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I would argue all if it is flawed reasoning from effectively judicial activism.

The original Roe v Wade was flawed as it effectively established a right to abortion without clear textual or precedent support in the Constitution. Social evolutions notwithstanding on why the issue itself became prominent generating the momentum for court challenge, but a broad interpretation of the "right to privacy" become the catalyst out of the 14th Amendment.

However, you could equally argue there are numerous flaws in the Dobbs decision. Outdated and misapplied interpretations allowed the Supreme Court to reject established precedent, even if flawed, throwing the matter back to the states to contend with along religious social conservative values. The core risk being bodily autonomy as it related to women's rights is gone.

Ultimately what the Supreme Court continues to wrestle with is the original intention of the 14th Amendment, and the crux of the matter is how it is applied to the unborn. Social conservatism gives one contextual based yes answer, social liberalism gives an entirely different contextual based no answer. Again, both of these monumental decisions are derived from political lines based on interpretive value, and that is the real rub of this debate.

The reality is the 14th Amendment was all about another matter entirely, no one at the time considering the rights of the born vs. unborn in the context of the abortion debate. Was not even the intention nor a matter of discussion at the time. Putting the nation back together was.

This matter is not going to entirely go away because social conservatism says so, no matter if performed illegally in some states or legally in others, just being pro-birth does not change the social and economic implications of these decisions. If MAGA Republicans try to nationalize what some states already have on the books expect a political pendulum response setting up some down the road condition for the Dobbs decision to be chipped away at.

And why? Because this is all interpretational. There is no direct and explicit language in the Constitution governing this.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There is no obvious contradiction. You're oversimplifying and relying on semantics.

The overwhelming number of abortions occur when the fetus is a bunch of non-sentient cells with little differentiation. To say they have the same rights as a human is ridiculous.

Your position seems to conflict with fetal homicide laws. Even the Roe/Casey SCOTUS decisions ‘reasoned’ that the level of fetal development prior to birth was important.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Gordy327]

They say the unborn have 'no' rights because they are not mentioned, then turn around and use the phrase, "my body, my choice". Claiming that phrase means the unborn inside the woman is part of her body, then needless to say the unborn have the same rights as the mother, because it's part of her body.

Deny the obvious contradiction is willful blindness. Try again.

If it's part of her body, then the unborn is occupying and feeding off her body like a parasite. Legal precedent also establishes that no one can be compelled to have their body used to benefit another without consent. So the woman gets to decide if she allows to have her body used for gestation or not. States which force her to gestate against her will via abortion restrictions in effect makes the woman a ward of the state, which also violates the 13th Amendment. The unborn do not have rights because neither the Constitution or federal law recognizes it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I would argue all if it is flawed reasoning from effectively judicial activism.

The original Roe v Wade was flawed as it effectively established a right to abortion without clear textual or precedent support in the Constitution. Social evolutions notwithstanding on why the issue itself became prominent generating the momentum for court challenge, but a broad interpretation of the "right to privacy" become the catalyst out of the 14th Amendment.

However, you could equally argue there are numerous flaws in the Dobbs decision. Outdated and misapplied interpretations allowed the Supreme Court to reject established precedent, even if flawed, throwing the matter back to the states to contend with along religious social conservative values. The core risk being bodily autonomy as it related to women's rights is gone.

Ultimately what the Supreme Court continues to wrestle with is the original intention of the 14th Amendment, and the crux of the matter is how it is applied to the unborn. Social conservatism gives one contextual based yes answer, social liberalism gives an entirely different contextual based no answer. Again, both of these monumental decisions are derived from political lines based on interpretive value, and that is the real rub of this debate.

The reality is the 14th Amendment was all about another matter entirely, no one at the time considering the rights of the born vs. unborn in the context of the abortion debate. Was not even the intention nor a matter of discussion at the time. Putting the nation back together was.

This matter is not going to entirely go away because social conservatism says so, no matter if performed illegally in some states or legally in others, just being pro-birth does not change the social and economic implications of these decisions. If MAGA Republicans try to nationalize what some states already have on the books expect a political pendulum response setting up some down the road condition for the Dobbs decision to be chipped away at.

And why? Because this is all interpretational. There is no direct and explicit language in the Constitution governing this.

Your last point (bolded above) seems to ignore the 10A.

 

[redbeer]

There is no obvious contradiction. You're oversimplifying and relying on semantics.

The overwhelming number of abortions occur when the fetus is a bunch of non-sentient cells with little differentiation. To say they have the same rights as a human is ridiculous.

I think the contradiction is huge and relevant to understanding on this issue. For any other reason than 'abortion' if one injures or kills an unborn child within the womb they are charged with crimes against the unborn, during any stage of development.

"My body, my choice" when the unborn is part of the pregnant woman.....easily understood to mean the unborn within is her body. That body has rights, does it not? I know you think it's semantics, but it leaves a glaring hole for abortion supporters.

I think they need a new slogan, for it has always perplexed my mind why they would use it seems nonsensical. Everybody knows that unborn child will eventually be born and become a different human being with its own body not of the mother. They do not kill themselves, nor do they give birth to themselves.

But I digress, the OP is over this glaring contradiction between the 14th Amendment and the slogan, "my body, my choice". In their minds the unborn are their body, then logically that part of her body has all the legal rights as her whole.

 

[Gordy327]

Your position seems to conflict with fetal homicide laws. Even the Roe/Casey SCOTUS decisions ‘reasoned’ that the level of fetal development prior to birth was important.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fetal homicide laws, despite being illogical, are centered around harm inflicted against the pregnant woman. It does not establish rights for the unborn or prohibit a woman from having an abortion. And what makes fetal development important? At what point would it be important? Many states seem to have completely arbitrary points of "importance."

 

[redbeer]

I would argue all if it is flawed reasoning from effectively judicial activism.

The original Roe v Wade was flawed as it effectively established a right to abortion without clear textual or precedent support in the Constitution. Social evolutions notwithstanding on why the issue itself became prominent generating the momentum for court challenge, but a broad interpretation of the "right to privacy" become the catalyst out of the 14th Amendment.

However, you could equally argue there are numerous flaws in the Dobbs decision. Outdated and misapplied interpretations allowed the Supreme Court to reject established precedent, even if flawed, throwing the matter back to the states to contend with along religious social conservative values. The core risk being bodily autonomy as it related to women's rights is gone.

Ultimately what the Supreme Court continues to wrestle with is the original intention of the 14th Amendment, and the crux of the matter is how it is applied to the unborn. Social conservatism gives one contextual based yes answer, social liberalism gives an entirely different contextual based no answer. Again, both of these monumental decisions are derived from political lines based on interpretive value, and that is the real rub of this debate.

The reality is the 14th Amendment was all about another matter entirely, no one at the time considering the rights of the born vs. unborn in the context of the abortion debate. Was not even the intention nor a matter of discussion at the time. Putting the nation back together was.

This matter is not going to entirely go away because social conservatism says so, no matter if performed illegally in some states or legally in others, just being pro-birth does not change the social and economic implications of these decisions. If MAGA Republicans try to nationalize what some states already have on the books expect a political pendulum response setting up some down the road condition for the Dobbs decision to be chipped away at.

And why? Because this is all interpretational. There is no direct and explicit language in the Constitution governing this.

Good post, and I think you're right. It's not going away soon or never, as it's an issue more based upon personal opinion/belief/religion. I agree the 14th amendment was not even in support or non-support of abortion, in fact concerning a different issue altogether.

My whole concern is using abortion as 'birth control'. In this, I disagree wholeheartedly, yet for medical reasons for the mother/child or both during pregnancy, that decision is between her and the doctor and should not be totally illegal to protect their lives. I think the majority of people favor this option, but not sure.

Bottom line for me is my limitations in first grasping it entirely, for how can I being a man, I will never carry or give birth to a child. It's a very difficult issue to be solved and will continue.

 

[Gordy327]

I think the contradiction is huge and relevant to understanding on this issue. For any other reason than 'abortion' if one injures or kills an unborn child within the womb they are charged with crimes against the unborn, during any stage of development.

"My body, my choice" when the unborn is part of the pregnant woman.....easily understood to mean the unborn within is her body. That body has rights, does it not? I know you think it's semantics, but it leaves a glaring hole for abortion supporters.

I think they need a new slogan, for it has always perplexed my mind why they would use it seems nonsensical. Everybody knows that unborn child will eventually be born and become a different human being with its own body not of the mother. They do not kill themselves, nor do they give birth to themselves.

But I digress, the OP is over this glaring contradiction between the 14th Amendment and the slogan, "my body, my choice". In their minds the unborn are their body, then logically that part of her body has all the legal rights as her whole.

There is no contradiction. The 14th establishes rights and personhood at birth. Neither does the unborn have any "right" to use another's body or bodily resources for its own benefit without consent. A woman's bodily autonomy is also protected under the 4th Amendment. Until you van demonstrate where the federal government or SCOTUS actually recognizes rights and personhood for the unborn, you really have nothing at all. Except a clear misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Gordy327]

My whole concern is using abortion as 'birth control'. In this, I disagree wholeheartedly, yet for medical reasons for the mother/child or both during pregnancy, that decision is between her and the doctor and should not be totally illegal to protect their lives. I think the majority of people favor this option, but not sure.

Bottom line for me is my limitations in first grasping it entirely, for how can I being a man, I will never carry or give birth to a child. It's a very difficult issue to be solved and will continue.

What difference does it make why a woman might choose abortion? It is a matter between the woman and her doctor and no one else's business or concern!

 

[OrphanSlug]

Your last point (bolded above) seems to ignore the 10A.

Given the nature of Supreme Court decision, say from the end of the Civil War forward, there is a strong argument to be made that even the 10th Amendment is interpretational, situational, therefor entirely watered down from the original meaning.

Right or wrong, good or bad, we could have that argument for the rest of our lives.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Given the nature of Supreme Court decision, say from the end of the Civil War forward, there is a strong argument to be made that even the 10th Amendment is interpretational, situational, therefor entirely watered down from the original meaning.

Right or wrong, good or bad, we could have that argument for the rest of our lives.

That “watered down” status seems to have rendered the 10A meaningless, such that if (when?) a matter is deemed to be ‘important’ then it may become a (new) federal government power.

 

[Integrityrespec]

The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.

Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.

I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.

Show me where the 14th says "abortion" or "women's reproductive rights". Interpretation, leaves things open to change.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Good post, and I think you're right. It's not going away soon or never, as it's an issue more based upon personal opinion/belief/religion. I agree the 14th amendment was not even in support or non-support of abortion, in fact concerning a different issue altogether.

My whole concern is using abortion as 'birth control'. In this, I disagree wholeheartedly, yet for medical reasons for the mother/child or both during pregnancy, that decision is between her and the doctor and should not be totally illegal to protect their lives. I think the majority of people favor this option, but not sure.

Bottom line for me is my limitations in first grasping it entirely, for how can I being a man, I will never carry or give birth to a child. It's a very difficult issue to be solved and will continue.

We are inching closer to a conversation on where the line could be, with has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment either.

"Using abortion as birth control" is a judgement of that person, usually from the outside and within the confines of more social conservative ideology. I am not calling you a terrible person, just saying the inverse of that is social liberalism that makes no distinction on reasons for the abortion so long as it is "between a woman and her doctor."

I forget who, I want to say older Pew Research efforts times many, suggested the majority of the nation looked at abortion overall as some compromise where neither social conservatism nor social liberalism was all that happy with the outcome. The further you went the restriction route the majority of the nation did not agree, but also the further you went into later term abortions for non-medical reasons the majority of the nation still did not agree. That sort of thing.

My point being the original Roe v Wade decision set a line in the sand, 1st trimester or 12 weeks, and even then there was concern over when the state could step in and regulate. And if we are being honest even then states took this varying directions with a few federal efforts notwithstanding. "Using abortion as birth control" landed in those first 12 weeks, even though today we see states cutting that in half with so called heart beat bills where assuming one knows one can still, in Georgia for example, obtain and abortion entirely for birth control motivations and ends. We can throw that conversation out as a personal matter you may object to but honestly it happens anyway even with some of these more restrictive measures.

The real question before us if we agree the 14th Amendment is interpretational for and against abortion, is where does that compromise land? 6 weeks is getting pushback, we have no evidence of general consensus on no regulation whatsoever, so... where?

 

[OrphanSlug]

That “watered down” status seems to have rendered the 10A meaningless, such that if (when?) a matter is deemed to be ‘important’ then it may become a (new) federal government power.

Look at it this way, and I am not asking you to agree but just consider, that most relevant Supreme Court decision on matters where a 10th Amendment argument is used tend to land on some variation of "the 10th Amendment indicates that the states may establish and maintain their own laws and policies so long as they do not conflict with the authority of the federal government."

Now the 10th Amendment does not say that like that but the Supreme Court has sure adopted a practice of allowing it so long as it disposes of some case where the Federal Government wants to regulate something that is not explicitly stated somewhere else in the Constitution.

We are getting dangerously close to a debate on literalism, vs. contextualism, vs. precedence. And no one is going to "win" that one given where the nation is now.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Look at it this way, and I am not asking you to agree but just consider, that most relevant Supreme Court decision on matters where a 10th Amendment argument is used tend to land on some variation of "the 10th Amendment indicates that the states may establish and maintain their own laws and policies so long as they do not conflict with the authority of the federal government."

Now the 10th Amendment does not say that like that but the Supreme Court has sure adopted a practice of allowing it so long as it disposes of some case where the Federal Government wants to regulate something that is not explicitly stated somewhere else in the Constitution.

We are getting dangerously close to a debate on literalism, vs. contextualism, vs. precedence. And no one is going to "win" that one given where the nation is now.

There are no federal schools (with the possible exception of the service academies), yet we now have a federal, cabinet level, Department of Education with a $70B+ annual budget.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I think the contradiction is huge and relevant to understanding on this issue. For any other reason than 'abortion' if one injures or kills an unborn child within the womb they are charged with crimes against the unborn, during any stage of development.

"My body, my choice" when the unborn is part of the pregnant woman.....easily understood to mean the unborn within is her body. That body has rights, does it not? I know you think it's semantics, but it leaves a glaring hole for abortion supporters.

I think they need a new slogan, for it has always perplexed my mind why they would use it seems nonsensical. Everybody knows that unborn child will eventually be born and become a different human being with its own body not of the mother. They do not kill themselves, nor do they give birth to themselves.

But I digress, the OP is over this glaring contradiction between the 14th Amendment and the slogan, "my body, my choice". In their minds the unborn are their body, then logically that part of her body has all the legal rights as her whole.

Yes, because politicians and judges are in a much better position to decide whether someone should be allowed to survive their ectopic pregnancy than physicians.

 

[OrphanSlug]

There are no federal schools (with the possible exception of the service academies), yet we now have a federal, cabinet level, Department of Education with a $70B+ annual budget.

It is much bigger than that.

Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Labor, EPA, the list goes on. Most with some degree of regulatory authority that at a minimum collides with State to State level initiatives.

My only point being we got here from a very long time of political objectives, challenges and disputes, decisions, etc.

 

[redbeer]

We are inching closer to a conversation on where the line could be, with has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment either.

"Using abortion as birth control" is a judgement of that person, usually from the outside and within the confines of more social conservative ideology. I am not calling you a terrible person, just saying the inverse of that is social liberalism that makes no distinction on reasons for the abortion so long as it is "between a woman and her doctor."

I forget who, I want to say older Pew Research efforts times many, suggested the majority of the nation looked at abortion overall as some compromise where neither social conservatism nor social liberalism was all that happy with the outcome. The further you went the restriction route the majority of the nation did not agree, but also the further you went into later term abortions for non-medical reasons the majority of the nation still did not agree. That sort of thing.

My point being the original Roe v Wade decision set a line in the sand, 1st trimester or 12 weeks, and even then there was concern over when the state could step in and regulate. And if we are being honest even then states took this varying directions with a few federal efforts notwithstanding. "Using abortion as birth control" landed in those first 12 weeks, even though today we see states cutting that in half with so called heart beat bills where assuming one knows one can still, in Georgia for example, obtain and abortion entirely for birth control motivations and ends. We can throw that conversation out as a personal matter you may object to but honestly it happens anyway even with some of these more restrictive measures.

The real question before us if we agree the 14th Amendment is interpretational for and against abortion, is where does that compromise land? 6 weeks is getting pushback, we have no evidence of general consensus on no regulation whatsoever, so... where?

Yes, it's hard to find common ground for compromise on abortion.....can't disagree with that. With such an emotional issue that has drastic change on both the mother and child with differing beliefs that affects many areas of lives, a total agreement between both sides and differing timelines between abortions can begin or cease is near impossible.

Along with the huge differences in cultural backgrounds, ideology, faith in God or lack of belief, it's a mammoth wall to climb. I think using the 14th Amendment along with the phrase, "my body, my choice" isn't working with the apparent contradictions, but even then, that's my opinion. Also, the usage of this heated issue politically only creates a bigger divide, whether the religious or the adamant supporters of abortion.

Judicial, political....where does that leave us? Is it more societal or a cultural issue? Yet within this also comes matters of faith or lack thereof, so here we are again, a stalemate. Idk, maybe it'll have to go towards a more personal responsibility to prevent pregnancy when one is not ready to have children. Not only the woman, but also the man in taking proper precautions to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

 

[redbeer]

Yes, because politicians and judges are in a much better position to decide whether someone should be allowed to survive their ectopic pregnancy than physicians.

I've always said/believed when there's complications with pregnancy that could cause serious health issues, even death to the mother or unborn, abortion becomes a medical procedure to save life. That's the middle ground of agreement both sides agree upon, except the radical who take it too far, either way.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It is much bigger than that.

I agree, but I was simply offering an example.

Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Labor, EPA, the list goes on. Most with some degree of regulatory authority that at a minimum collides with State to State level initiatives.

My only point being we got here from a very long time of political objectives, challenges and disputes, decisions, etc.

We got here via a constant increase in the power and expense of the federal government coupled with ‘do whatever you think should be done’ (legislative) mission statements for these ever expanding federal ‘executive’ departments, agencies and programs.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I've always said/believed when there's complications with pregnancy that could cause serious health issues, even death to the mother or unborn, abortion becomes a medical procedure to save life. That's the middle ground of agreement both sides agree upon, except the radical who take it too far, either way.

So, you're not against abortion, per se, but you want a say in whether the motivations to kill the baby are appropriate.