Roe should be overturned.

[rickc]

 

[aociswundumho]

So then abortions would be ok if the Drs were certified by a private professional organization and not the state? They would have qualifications and then be licensed by a professional organization instead?

Yes, and the state wouldn't have the power to get in between doctors and patients. Milton Friedman was arguing again physician licensing for decades, starting way back in the 60s.

 

[Lursa]

Yes, and the state wouldn't have the power to get in between doctors and patients. Milton Friedman was arguing again physician licensing for decades, starting way back in the 60s.

So overturning RvW would have no impact on abortion being available to women then.

If you can manage to get the govt out of the process, let me know. Otherwise, women still need the protection of RvW.

If you dont agree that women's right to abortion SHOULD be protected, then your argument has been BS. Do you agree a woman's right to abortion should be protected?

 

[aociswundumho]

So overturning RvW would have no impact on abortion being available to women then.

My guess is some states would pass laws against abortion, so availability would decrease. Ain't democracy grand?

If you can manage to get the govt out of the process, let me know.

Once the state gets in, it's almost impossible to get it out. As the government makes the situation worse, as it has for healthcare, education, housing, etc, progressives argue for even more government involvement.

If you dont agree that women's right to abortion SHOULD be protected, then your argument has been BS. Do you agree a woman's right to abortion should be protected?

I'm only stating that Roe was a case of judicial activism. The Constitution grants no powers to federal government regarding abortion, or anything healthcare related.

 

[Lursa]

My guess is some states would pass laws against abortion, so availability would decrease. Ain't democracy grand?

Based on what? The right would still stand without RvW...thru at least the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.

Just like it does now, the fed govt (thru SCOTUS) overturns any laws that ban/highly restrict abortion...those laws are 'passed' by states and are continually overturned.

How would that change if RvW were removed?

Once the state gets in, it's almost impossible to get it out. As the government makes the situation worse, as it has for healthcare, education, housing, etc, progressives argue for even more government involvement.

Like I wrote, the states try this frequently. In the past 2 years several states tried to ban abortion/criminalize abortion/ban it at fetal heartbeat. They 'passed them' but not a single one was enacted. All were challenged in the courts. Those that have been adjudicated have all been overturned as unconstitutional. The ones that havent been in court yet are still waiting...not enacted.

I'm only stating that Roe was a case of judicial activism. The Constitution grants no powers to federal government regarding abortion, or anything healthcare related.

So you didnt answer my question, why not:

If you dont agree that women's right to abortion SHOULD be protected, then your argument has been BS. Do you agree a woman's right to abortion should be protected?​

And the Const protects a woman's right to have an abortion under the 9th Amendment. It would require positive legal challenges to violate that.

 

[COTO]

NYT: Do we really want our rights determined by the understandings of centuries ago?

You mean by like... the Constitution?

 

[aociswundumho]

Based on what? The right would still stand without RvW...thru at least the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.

The 4th is about property, not privacy. There is no right to privacy. The very idea of a "right" to privacy is incoherent. If you disagree, then attack the argument I made in post #1.

 

[Lursa]

The 4th is about property, not privacy. There is no right to privacy. The very idea of a "right" to privacy is incoherent. If you disagree, then attack the argument I made in post #1.

It includes 'security of the person.'

It's one of the 'go-to' legal examples for things like, "Can the govt demand that you give up one of your kidneys to save another life?"

And I'll not answer any more of your questions, as I have been yours, civilly and constructively, until you answer mine (because when I do, you shift the argument.) So let's just get some things straight before continuing:

If you dont agree that women's right to abortion SHOULD be protected, then your argument has been BS. Do you agree a woman's right to abortion should be protected?​

This question is a natural result of the argument you were making at the time, so please dont say that it's some kind of 'gotcha.'

 

[aociswundumho]

It includes 'security of the person.'

That has to do with habeas corpus, not privacy.

And I'll not answer any more of your questions, as I have been yours, civilly and constructively, until you answer mine (because when I do, you shift the argument.) So let's just get some things straight before continuing:

If you dont agree that women's right to abortion SHOULD be protected, then your argument has been BS. Do you agree a woman's right to abortion should be protected?​

This question is a natural result of the argument you were making at the time, so please dont say that it's some kind of 'gotcha.'

Protected from what? If you mean should she and her doctor be protected from government interference, then yes, I completely agree. Government should have absolutely no say regarding anyone's healthcare decisions, including euthanasia.

 

[Lursa]

That has to do with habeas corpus, not privacy.

Protected from what? If you mean should she and her doctor be protected from government interference, then yes, I completely agree. Government should have absolutely no say regarding anyone's healthcare decisions, including euthanasia.

Good, thanks. I also believe the govt should stay completely out of it.

However I dont care if you believe if there's a right to privacy in the Const or not. The great majority of legal minds in the US agree that it is and many many of our laws, which I personally feel have value protecting us, are based on that interpretation. If you disagree, fine. But also IMO, that interpretation isnt going anywhere.

 

[weaver2]

Justice Scalia, who died in 2016, repeatedly and unequivocally urged that Roe be overruled, arguing that the Constitution says nothing about abortion and states should be allowed to decide the question for themselves.Like it or not, he's correct. Roe is quintessential judicial activism. There is no "right to privacy". I don't mean there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, I mean there is no "right" to privacy period.Roe should be overturned, end of story.

Scalia is wrong. While the Constitution doesn't say anything about specific rights such as the right get a face lift or an abortion it has a great deal to say about liberty, which is the right to make the personal decisions that determine who you are.

From the text of the Roe decision:
In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of 'liberty' must be broad indeed.' The Constitution nowhere mentions a specific right of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life, but the 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment covers more than those freedoms explicitly named in the Bill of Rights.

As Mr. Justice Harlan once wrote: '(T)he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points priced out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must; that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.’

In the words of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, 'Great concepts like . . . 'liberty' . . . were purposely left to gather meaning from experience. For they relate to the whole domain of social and economic fact, and the statesmen who founded this Nation knew too well that only a stagnant society remains unchanged.'

Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

We recognized 'the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.'

That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. 'Certainly the interests of a woman in giving of her physical and emotional self during pregnancy and the interests that will be affected throughout her life by the birth and raising of a child are of a far greater degree of significance and personal intimacy than the right to send a child to private school protected in Pierce v. Society or the right to teach a foreign language protected in Meyer v. Nebraska.

 

[aociswundumho]

Scalia is wrong. While the Constitution doesn't say anything about specific rights such as the right get a face lift or an abortion it has a great deal to say about liberty, which is the right to make the personal decisions that determine who you are.

From the text of the Roe decision:
In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of 'liberty' must be broad indeed.' The Constitution nowhere mentions a specific right of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life, but the 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment covers more than those freedoms explicitly named in the Bill of Rights.

As Mr. Justice Harlan once wrote: '(T)he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points priced out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must; that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.’

In the words of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, 'Great concepts like . . . 'liberty' . . . were purposely left to gather meaning from experience. For they relate to the whole domain of social and economic fact, and the statesmen who founded this Nation knew too well that only a stagnant society remains unchanged.'

Nice argument for human liberty, let's find out if you really believe it.

If a woman has the right to kill the baby growing inside of her, then she certainly must also have the right to work for whatever wage she can bargain for in the labor market, and laws which prevent her from working for a wage below some arbitrary number are clearly unjust.

In the interest of human liberty, do you support abolishing minimum wage laws?

In the interest of human liberty, do you support abolishing all nanny-state laws?

While the Constitution doesn't say anything about specific rights such as the right get a face lift or an abortion it has a great deal to say about liberty, which is the right to make the personal decisions that determine who you are.

One very personal decision is choosing which drugs to put into your own body. Do you agree she should have the liberty to put any drug she wishes into her own body, and that the state should have no say in it whatsoever?

 

[weaver2]

If a woman has the right to kill the baby growing inside of her, then she certainly must also have the right to work for whatever wage she can bargain for in the labor market, and laws which prevent her from working for a wage below some arbitrary number are clearly unjust. In the interest of human liberty, do you support abolishing minimum wage laws? In the interest of human liberty, do you support abolishing all nanny-state laws?

We (the government)makes laws to regulate situations that effect all of society: businesses, wages, workplace safety, consumptions of toxins, water and air quality, medical services, food inspection, national protection, etc. People have the liberty to make their own decisions with out our (the government's) interference in parts of their lives that are private, personal and do not effect other people: what they read or write or think, where they go to church, their religious beliefs, their philosophical beliefs, who they choose for friends, where they live, their homes, their profession, where they go to school, who they vote for, who they are. Abortion, when to have a child, is one of those private matters between just the woman and her family. The decision they make does not effect anyone but them. I don't see a parallel in wage bargaining and abortion.

One very personal decision is choosing which drugs to put into your own body. Do you agree she should have the liberty to put any drug she wishes into her own body, and that the state should have no say in it whatsoever?

We (the government) regulate the drug industry and personal consumption because of the risk of death or injury to the individual and to others if they are used inappropriately. A good example is the regulation of laudanum and alcohol. Both were used indiscriminately in adult elixirs and baby soothing syrups resulting in significant addiction that took a toll on society.

 

[Lursa]

We (the government)makes laws to regulate situations that effect all of society:

This is a good point. If one wanted to view the 'legitimacy' of regulating or banning abortion based on that criteria, there's no negative effects of abortion on society. There would be no need or justification to regulate or ban.

OTOH, I do believe in medical regulations that are meant to ensure that medical procedures are safe for patients and Drs.

If there are any negative effects of abortion on society, I've never seen any listed, and I've asked many times.

 

[aociswundumho]

This is a good point. If one wanted to view the 'legitimacy' of regulating or banning abortion based on that criteria, there's no negative effects of abortion on society. There would be no need or justification to regulate or ban.

So were are talking about a developing human. You're claiming there are no negative effects on society if the mother kills this developing human when it is 3 months old. Disregard legality, morality, emotions, and suppose instead she kills this developing human at 3 years old or at 13 years old. Do you still maintain there are no negative effects on society?

There are negative effects to killing any of them, they are just hard to see. Virtually everyone can produce more than they consume, and every person who does so makes the world a little bit richer.

 

[Lursa]

So were are talking about a developing human. You're claiming there are no negative effects on society if the mother kills this developing human when it is 3 months old. Disregard legality, morality, emotions, and suppose instead she kills this developing human at 3 years old or at 13 years old. Do you still maintain there are no negative effects on society?

There are negative effects to killing any of them, they are just hard to see. Virtually everyone can produce more than they consume, and every person who does so makes the world a little bit richer.

Nope, please list some concrete negative effects on society. Please answer my question, then we can discuss yours. We are discussing regulations and restrictions and I was using your context.

 

[aociswundumho]

We (the government)makes laws to regulate situations that effect all of society: businesses, wages, workplace safety, consumptions of toxins, water and air quality, medical services, food inspection, national protection, etc.

This is a statement, not an argument. Note that in your first sentence you've already thrown personal liberty out the window.

People have the liberty to make their own decisions with out our (the government's) interference in parts of their lives that are private, personal and do not effect other people: what they read or write or think, where they go to church, their religious beliefs, their philosophical beliefs, who they choose for friends, where they live, their homes, their profession, where they go to school, who they vote for, who they are.

Everything you listed above effects other people. Consider reading and thinking. You've probably read a lot of Marx and works from Lenin and Mao. This negatively effects society, because you vote based on your beliefs.

The religion you practice also effects society for the same reason.

their homes, their profession, where they go to school, who they vote for, who they are.

Don't you support building and housing codes which regulate your home? Don't you support occupational licensing laws, which allows the state to control various professions? Aren't you against school choice?

You listed these things as "private, personal" and yet you want government control over all of them. You simply do not agree with keeping the government out of our personal lives.

Abortion, when to have a child, is one of those private matters between just the woman and her family. The decision they make does not effect anyone but them. I don't see a parallel in wage bargaining and abortion.

It's not complicated. Ask a stranger what they do for a living and then ask them how much they make. Most people will tell you their wages are private, personal, and none of your business.

 

[aociswundumho]

Nope, please list some concrete negative effects on society. Please answer my question, then we can discuss yours. We are discussing regulations and restrictions and I was using your context.

Making society poorer is a negative effect on society.

 

[Hamish Howl]

I always like watching Libertarians explain why other peoples' rights are not important.

Libertarians almost without exception are constantly furious that women get to control their own bodies.

 

[Lursa]

Making society poorer is a negative effect on society.

How is society poorer? Please explain. It needs to be something measurable, studied, recognized, etc.

I can provide links that show it saves $$, if you are speaking to actual $$.

 

[aociswundumho]

I can provide links that show it saves $$, if you are speaking to actual $$.

Let's see some of them.

 

[Lursa]

Let's see some of them.

Nope, you first. Why wont you answer?

(And I've posted them many times before.)

 

[aociswundumho]

Nope, you first. Why wont you answer?

I answered you in post 165. Saying "Nope" isn't a rebuttal.

 

[Lursa]

So were are talking about a developing human. You're claiming there are no negative effects on society if the mother kills this developing human when it is 3 months old. Disregard legality, morality, emotions, and suppose instead she kills this developing human at 3 years old or at 13 years old. Do you still maintain there are no negative effects on society?

There are negative effects to killing any of them, they are just hard to see. Virtually everyone can produce more than they consume, and every person who does so makes the world a little bit richer.

I answered you in post 165. Saying "Nope" isn't a rebuttal.

You didnt prove any of those things, you couldnt even provide examples. The question was show the negative effects of abortion on society. You did not. You drastically moved the goal posts. You made a statement saying I claimed something I definitely didnt. You resorted to a lie to avoid answering.

then you did say there are no negative effects in your 2nd para. Is that what you're going with? Because then we can get back to our previous discussion on how you referred to harm to society from abortion.

 

[rickc]