Abortion is NOT a woman's right

[NatMorton]

Can you give the statistics for women wanting abortion on demand in the third trimester.

No, and it doesn't matter. Quantity is not what's at issue in this discussion. Authority is, as in a state's right to proscribe abortion in the third trimester.

 

[NatMorton]

A law to protect does not = recognizing rights. How many times do you need to read that? Do you NOT read it? Or are you incapable of understanding it?

Can you please explain why South Carolina's bill is called the "Fetal Heartbeat Protection from Abortion Act" if the legislative intent was not to protect the life of the fetus?

 

[NatMorton]

And not a single one recognizes a right to life for the unborn. If it did, they'd have to protect that life. And in every one of those states, a woman can still have an abortion. If the unborn had a right to life....how does that work???

I've explained that elsewhere in this thread. Those bills have exceptions for cases where the health of the mother is at risk. At that point it's not a question of the mother's right to privacy. It's then a question of her right to life, too, and our legal system has long recognized a right to self-defense even when it puts others at risk.

In the third trimester, a state is free to assert a fetus's right to life supersedes a mother's right to privacy. I know this bothers you, but it's the truth.

 

[NatMorton]

How can the unborn have a 'right to life' only in the 3rd trimester but not before?

Because that is what Roe did: made it illegal for states to define any fetal rights before the third trimester.

 

[NatMorton]

The states have the right to restrict abortion in the 3rd trimester but there is nothing in the Roe decisions that says states can simply ban all abortions in the 3rd trimester. Roe says:
97. "With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.'"

It is this potential life, the life outside the womb, the life after birth that the state is interested in. And the law is prohibiting the mother from interfering in the potentiality. The law here is a prohibition not a conferring of a right. You want to think of it as a conferred right but there is no statement of that fact. It looks like the Roe decision goes out of its way to avoid giving the impression that it is giving a fetus a right to life.

It would seem that the insistence by the anti-abortion movement that Roe gives the fetus a right to life in the 3rd trimester is a goal with the idea that once a right to life is established that right can be gradually extended to conception and 1st and 2nd abortions can be banned.

I clarified this earlier; when I said "ban abortions" my intent was "ban abortion on demand."

Glad we both agree the state has the authority to declare a fetus's right to life is more important than the mother's right to privacy. Perhaps you'll have better luck convincing Lursa of that. She's still denying the reality of the situation.

 

[NatMorton]

Abortion rights fall under the umbrella of the right to privacy under the 9th, as well as pertaining to individual liberties or privileges under the 14th amendment.

I think you mean privacy under the 4th, but regardless, if what you say is true, how can third trimester abortion restrictions ever be Constitutional?

 

[Lursa]

No, I would say it is based on the court case Roe v Wade.

There is no mention of the right to body sovereignty in the Constitution. It would most closely be related to Marbury v. Madison, which gave the Article 3 branch the ability to determine the constitutionality of the other two branches actions imo.

4th Amendment & "security of the person."

 

[vegas giants]

I think you mean privacy under the 4th, but regardless, if what you say is true, how can third trimester abortion restrictions ever be Constitutional?

Actually the 14th and 9th

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 153.[81]

 

[Lursa]

Can you please explain why South Carolina's bill is called the "Fetal Heartbeat Protection from Abortion Act" if the legislative intent was not to protect the life of the fetus?

How many times do you need to be told that protecting something does not imply that thing has rights. Remember the trees? The deer? The historic building? It says it right there in the title, "Protection."

Does the Wilderness Act that forbids logging in wilderness areas confer rights on trees? Does the Endangered Species Act recognize rights for any species? Yes or no?

 

[Gordy327]

I think you mean privacy under the 4th, but regardless, if what you say is true, how can third trimester abortion restrictions ever be Constitutional?

No, i refer to the 9th & 14th with regards to Roe. And 3rd trimester abortions should be allowed.

 

[Lursa]

I've explained that elsewhere in this thread. Those bills have exceptions for cases where the health of the mother is at risk. At that point it's not a question of the mother's right to privacy. It's then a question of her right to life, too, and our legal system has long recognized a right to self-defense even when it puts others at risk.

My examples had nothing to do with the mother's health. A perfectly healthy woman can go to another state and have an abortion and return to her home state, and if that state has a ban on abortion...they still cannot charge her with murder.

As you've already admitted, if that perfectly healthy woman goes to another state, kills her toddler, when she returns home, she will be charged with a crime.

In the third trimester, a state is free to assert a fetus's right to life supersedes a mother's right to privacy. I know this bothers you, but it's the truth.

No, the state may choose to restrict that late term abortion "in its own interests" which is clearly stated in that provision of the decision. The only thing bothering me is that you continue to lie about this, over and over.

"(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."​

And not a single word about rights. Cuz they made that perfectly clear here:

"On 22 January 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court declared that an unborn child enjoys no constitutional protection before he or she emerges from the womb. Even after viability, the fetus in utero counts only as a "potentiality of human life.""​

--and--

The Supreme Court’s abortion rulings include four principal elements: 1. The unborn child is a non-person and therefore has no constitutional rights; 2. The right of his mother to kill that non-person is a “ liberty Charles E. Rice 3 interest” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 3. The states may impose some marginal restrictions on abortion but are barred from effectively prohibiting abortion at any stage of pregnancy; 4. Efforts undertaken in the vicinity of an abortuary to dissuade women from abortion are subject to more stringent restrictions than are other forms of speech, assembly and association.​

http://www.uffl.org/vol%209/rice9.pdf

 

[Lursa]

Because that is what Roe did: made it illegal for states to define any fetal rights before the third trimester.

Let's see where RvW did that. You cant even show where they 'made it legal to define fetal rights after the third trimester'

 

[Lursa]

No, i refer to the 9th & 14th with regards to Roe. And 3rd trimester abortions should be allowed.

Just because they focused mainly on privacy in RvW, like I wrote earlier, there are other Const protections they can use.

Here's another potential one:

"And on June 29, 1992, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter each read aloud portions of their joint opinion. It was Souter who spoke the meat of it. "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation," he said, "has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives."​

​

It was a remarkable sentence. For it spoke not of privacy -- the legal ground that Roe was built upon -- but equality, the principle that future Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others had famously asserted ought to undergird Roe instead."​

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/23/opinions/abortion-rights-supreme-court-souter-prager/index.html

 

[Lursa]

No, i refer to the 9th & 14th with regards to Roe. And 3rd trimester abortions should be allowed.

And here's another case that IS based on bodily autonomy and then the Harvard Law Review explains how it can be applied to abortion.

Bodily autonomy: McFall vs Shimp​

​

Six years after Roe v. Wade (1973), the landmark Supreme Court case that upheld a woman’s right to abortion based on her inherent right to privacy, the Common Pleas Court of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, ruled in favor of the “sanctity of the individual” to uphold women’s right to choice. The case, McFall v. Shimp (1978), ruled that a person could not be legally compelled to participate in medical treatment to save another person's life.​

​

The holding of McFall v. Shimp extends beyond this narrow circumstance; Judge John P. Flaherty applied the ruling to the moral obligations of people and other living things, citing the duty of the court to protect the individual from being invaded and hurt by others. [1] McFall v. Shimp employs the physical body's rights and duties, consistent with the discussion of reproductive rights during pregnancy—given the ongoing discourse on the legality of abortion, a critical examination of bodily integrity is necessary to distinguish moral conflicts from legal obligations.​

​

McFall v. Shimp set a legal precedent that an individual is not under compulsion to aid another person at their mental or physical expense, upholding the right to bodily autonomy found at the center of the debate on the legality of abortion.​

McFall v. Shimp and the Case for Bodily Autonomy — Harvard Undergraduate Law Review

Six years after Roe v. Wade (1973), the landmark Supreme Court case that upheld a woman’s right to abortion based on her inherent right to privacy, the Common Pleas Court of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, ruled in favor of the “sanctity of the individual” to uphold women’s right to choice. The case

hulr.org

Not only that, in the case above, there's no obligation to save the life of a person. The unborn is NOT a person, and they have no rights. So the bodily autonomy argument is even stronger.

 

[Lursa]

No, i refer to the 9th & 14th with regards to Roe. And 3rd trimester abortions should be allowed.

And these precedents explain "privacy." It's not about something remaining private, it's about the rights of women and couples to determine familial, marital, and reproductive decisions without govt interference.

Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Thank you @minnie616

 

[Gordy327]

And here's another case that IS based on bodily autonomy and then the Harvard Law Review explains how it can be applied to abortion.

Bodily autonomy: McFall vs Shimp​

​

Six years after Roe v. Wade (1973), the landmark Supreme Court case that upheld a woman’s right to abortion based on her inherent right to privacy, the Common Pleas Court of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, ruled in favor of the “sanctity of the individual” to uphold women’s right to choice. The case, McFall v. Shimp (1978), ruled that a person could not be legally compelled to participate in medical treatment to save another person's life.​

​

The holding of McFall v. Shimp extends beyond this narrow circumstance; Judge John P. Flaherty applied the ruling to the moral obligations of people and other living things, citing the duty of the court to protect the individual from being invaded and hurt by others. [1] McFall v. Shimp employs the physical body's rights and duties, consistent with the discussion of reproductive rights during pregnancy—given the ongoing discourse on the legality of abortion, a critical examination of bodily integrity is necessary to distinguish moral conflicts from legal obligations.​

​

McFall v. Shimp set a legal precedent that an individual is not under compulsion to aid another person at their mental or physical expense, upholding the right to bodily autonomy found at the center of the debate on the legality of abortion.​

McFall v. Shimp and the Case for Bodily Autonomy — Harvard Undergraduate Law Review

Six years after Roe v. Wade (1973), the landmark Supreme Court case that upheld a woman’s right to abortion based on her inherent right to privacy, the Common Pleas Court of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, ruled in favor of the “sanctity of the individual” to uphold women’s right to choice. The case

hulr.org

Not only that, in the case above, there's no obligation to save the life of a person. The unborn is NOT a person, and they have no rights. So the bodily autonomy argument is even stronger.

Well said.

 

[NatMorton]

How many times do you need to be told that protecting something does not imply that thing has rights

As many times as it takes for that statement to make sense. The first 15 or 20 times you've said it hasn't worked.

I would like you to explain what allows the state to overrule a woman's right to privacy. Literally, in the third trimester a majority of states don't allow her full control over her own body. What "protecting" could possibly justify that sort of government intrusion if not protecting the life of another?

 

[NatMorton]

No, i refer to the 9th & 14th with regards to Roe. And 3rd trimester abortions should be allowed.

"Should" doesn't enter in to this conversation. Third trimester abortions are allowed under Roe, and that is a fact.

 

[NatMorton]

A perfectly healthy woman can go to another state and have an abortion and return to her home state

Not the issue. We are discussing what a state can and cannot do within its own jurisdiction. And one of the things they can do is declare a fetal right to live during its third trimester and have that supersede a woman's right to privacy. Fact, not opinion.

For example, even in your own state, Lursa, they do not allow you to make that decision about your own body after week 25.

"You have the legal right to have an abortion for any reason before fetal viability. Fetal viability means that the fetus, if born, could survive. That’s at about 24-25 weeks into a pregnancy. You can still get an abortion after that if the abortion is necessary to protect your health or your life."​

Source: here.

 

[NatMorton]

the United States Supreme Court declared that an unborn child enjoys no constitutional protection before he or she emerges from the womb

And how many times do you need to be told I'm not asserting that the law that prevents you from having a third trimester abortion on demand is a Constitutional protection. It's a state law that protects Washington State fetuses in the third trimester, not a federal law.

 

[Lursa]

As many times as it takes for that statement to make sense. The first 15 or 20 times you've said it hasn't worked.

I would like you to explain what allows the state to overrule a woman's right to privacy. Literally, in the third trimester a majority of states don't allow her full control over her own body. What "protecting" could possibly justify that sort of government intrusion if not protecting the life of another?

No, it's been written. It was in the RvW statement I posted for you. I highlighted key terms in red. The state's interest.

You have to show us where anything in that decision recognized rights for the unborn if a state chose to restrict late term abortion and protect the unborn.

What justifies protecting trees in a forest? What justifies protecting endangered species? What justifies protecting historic buildings? Lots of things but in NONE of those cases do any of those things have any rights recognized.

 

[NatMorton]

Let's see where RvW did that. You cant even show where they 'made it legal to define fetal rights after the third trimester'

I never said it did. I said it allows states to, and you know the passage well. It's been shown to you multiple times.

If you cannot defend your position without resorting to straw-men, you cannot defend your position.

 

[Lursa]

And how many times do you need to be told I'm not asserting that the law that prevents you from having a third trimester abortion on demand is a Constitutional protection. It's a state law that protects Washington State fetuses in the third trimester, not a federal law.

The law may protect the fetuses but nowhere does it confer any rights on them.

 

[NatMorton]

You have to show us where anything in that decision recognized rights for the unborn if a state chose to restrict late term abortion and protect the unborn.

No, I don't. Because that's not what I'm asserting.

 

[NatMorton]

The law may protect the fetuses but nowhere does it confer any rights on them.

Yes, it does. It confers a right on them that literally trumps your right to privacy and your right to bodily autonomy. That's what being prevented from having an abortion means. The decision is no longer yours alone.