- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 18,824
- Reaction score
- 12,227
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
May I add this, @Evilroddy? What parent wants their 12 y/o to carry to term a baby conceived from incest? No one. What parent wants their college freshman raped by frat boys during Rush Week to bear a child? What husband wants his wife raped at gun point to bear a child. Parents who desperately want a child find that she has no brain should they allow that baby to suffer a gruesome death? A mother with children at home should carry a child that puts her life is in jeopardy from the pregnancy should carry that pregnancy to term? Every life is precious, especially the mother who is your wife, your daughter, sister, niece, cousin, friend and complete stranger who is forced to carry a baby to term under tragic circumstances. I'd say no one. Not even a radical pro-lifer, legislator or judge. They'll find someone to terminate that pregnancy but will deny others that right.Originalism is at least a factor in the Alito draft ruling. He argues that nowhere in the constitution is abortion written and thus it is not a right of pregnant women. But originalism has a problem. In the late 18th Century women were legal chattel and were denied many rights which men of property over the age of 21 years enjoyed. So if one takes an originalist's interpretation of the constitution with respect to women's rights then women are second-class citizens who can be legally abused and who can be denied rights which men enjoy. Thus originalism will deny women the right to own property, the right to vote, the right to run for elected office and the right to work as ls gal professional such as jurists.
Alito thereafter argued because there was no overtly expressed right to abortion explicitly stated in the US constitution that SCOTUS decisions in 1972 and 1992 created a right where no right had existed before in the constitution or in the Bill of Rights. Keep in mind that in the late 17th Century America was a country which had no guaranteed future and only the growth of its population could guarantee its continued existence in the face of British French and Spanish imperial aspirations. Only by growing and arming its population could the USA fend off these threats and expand its dominion in the face of these dangerous rivals. Thus abortion was deemed both a religious and a secular sin and therefore it is no mystery why it was not included in the constitution explicitly. So abortion would endanger the country and the country was more important than women's rights and women's health or even their lives. Many women died in child birth in the late 18th Century. So again originalism is condemning women to a shorter, more hardship-prone and brutalised life because it served the interests of men in power both in the 18th Century and now.
More to come tomorrow.
Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.