Does a woman have a right...

[DarkWizard12]

Wait! You are saying that the government should be able to decide whether or not and under what circumstances I can have sex?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Yes.

(10 characters)

 

[minnie616]

No such right to an abortion exist in the Constitution. I can look at the Constitution and read where the right to bear arms exist. Can you show me the word abortion in the Constitution?

Our Bill of Rights protect privacy including the right to personal autonomy.


From the following live science article:

Constitutional rights

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.


The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:



No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.

Read more:

https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html

 

[minnie616]

Perhaps you should read the Declaration. Thomas Jefferson was clear about it. If you can't understand it, I'll help you to a level but it's clear that your level is very low. I suspect about an 85 IQ is all you have and that's below average.

The Declaration of Independence was not a legal document.
The US Constitution is a legal document.
The idea of natural rights that Thomas Jefferson based the DOI most likely came from John Locke.


John Locke said " all men are born equally free" and hold certain " natural rights"...

The key word is born.

 

[minnie616]

They have no rights legally unless the mother says they do. Scott Peterson was charged with and convicted of double homicide when he killed his pregnant wife.

In our schizophrenic legal code, the unborn is both a tissue mass and an individual. The only deciding factor is whether or not the mother says the tissue mass is a person or that the person is tissue mass.

If the mother asks for an abortion, the unborn is a tissue mass. If the mother says the tissue mass is an unborn person and another individual causes injury to that unborn person, there is legal consequence for the one doing the injury.

You seem to have missed the words in my post that said: "...assuming an endowing creator exists to endow rights...". Jefferson said that these rights were self evident. Are you dismissing Jefferson and the Declaration in one sweeping gesture.?

If that is the case as Jefferson seems to have believed and included in the Declaration, then the creator presumably endows at the point of creation, not legal identity. An all powerful Creator is probably not overly concerned with man made laws.

False .
Under US code an unborn is not a human being/child/person/individual.

An unborn has no rights.

However states have rights and states can pass laws such feticide laws to protect potential live as long as they also protect abortion before viabiliblity for the pregnant woman or her legal guardian.

States may also proscribe( ban ) abortions past viability except in cases where the woman’s life is at risk or where irreparable damage ( such as: stroke, heart attack, paralysis from the neck down, liver or kidney damage etc.) would occur if the pregnancy continued.

As for Jefferson and the DOI please read my above post.

 

[maquiscat]

Our Bill of Rights protect privacy including the right to personal autonomy.


From the following live science article:



Read more:

https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html

Mostly playing devil's advocate here, how far does that go? Does it apply to children? Till what age? And if privacy means that we cannot ban procedures, how is the gay conversion therapy ban legal?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[minnie616]

Mostly playing devil's advocate here, how far does that go? Does it apply to children? Till what age? And if privacy means that we cannot ban procedures, how is the gay conversion therapy ban legal?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

States have the right to ban unsafe medical procedures of it’s citizens and when early abortion laws were first made abortions were unsafe for the woman . By the early 1970s abortions were safer for the woman than childbirth. Therefore states cannot ban abortions for safety reasons.

As for gay conversation therpy....that’s up to courts to decide.


As,stated the Due Process protections are narrowly define and usually only pertain zones of privacy including, family , marriage, motherhood, procreation ad child rearing.

Being able to send you child to a private school instead of a public school was one of the early Due Process precedents that Roe was
Founded on.

The following is a list of precedents that Roe was founded on.

 

[minnie616]

.....
The following is a list of precedents that Roe was founded on.

There were many precedents regarding privacy before Roe was decideded.


In fact it would be extremely hard to overturn Roe without also striking down the precedents of right to privacy cases before Roe including cases regarding child rearing.

The following Surpreme Court decisions would most likely would become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned and that is not going to happen.


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 relation. 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.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.

 

[Scrabaholic]

And if privacy means that we cannot ban procedures, how is the gay conversion therapy ban legal?

First off, is it illegal for everyone or just for minors?

Second, is it a medical procedure, taught in med school, is it in medical textbooks?

Personally, I'm against banning it for adults as long as the patient gives informed consent. By informed consent, I mean s/he is told the truth about it and it's effectiveness.

 

[soylentgreen]

You are avoiding the question altogether. How effective a procedure is is irrelevant if the deciding factor is whether it's a medical issue or a rights issue. If it's a medical issue, as you have placed abortion to be, then they cannot make it illegal, since it's not a rights issue. If it's a rights issue, again, how do you make it illegal? The principle must hold across the board. And a reminder, I am arguing from the principle that a right is something that the government cannot make illegal, but is not.required to provide.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

That is not true. The efficacy of the treatment is very important otherwise any quack remedy can make claims that are not true. Claiming some procedure is a medical one when it has no health benefits at all and even have some health risks is not a medical issue it is a legal one of fraud.

Abortion can not be associated with discarded harmful fraudulent treatments that you have suggested because abortion is a medical practice that does work.

And i have stated this quite clearly. Abortion is not a right it is a decision. The right that should be discussed is that of the right to self determination. In this case the right to decide what happens to ones own body. I seriously doubt any anti abortionist would allow doctors to forcibly remove part of their liver to save another life if they refused to have such an operation. But they demand that a woman consent against her will to provide life for another. The hypocrisy is that they demand a right to self determination but refuse it for women.

 

[code1211]

Absolutely. It's not the government's place to grant rights.

That is the precise point set forth by the Framers.

The role of the government is to protect the rights of its citizens.

Freedom of action, speech and thought are what the government needs to protect.

They assumed that if a man doesn't work, that man doesn't eat. They were willing to lay down their lives to assure that if the man preferred to starve, he be allowed to do so.

Now we are not only not allowed to starve, the foods we may eat are dictated and the folks who provide it are bribed to assure we have access to nothing else.

Hamilton weeps.

 

[code1211]

Stop displaying your hypocrisy and tell us where in the constitution any of those so called unalienable rights are mentioned. You are using the constitution as a self serving argument rather than showing an understanding of how it works,

Every word not defining the structure of government defines the limitation of the government.

To make it clear even to the most dense, the framers demanded that the Tenth Amendment be added to block the Feds from grabbing more power:

Here's what it says. Study it and absorb the FACT that this is the strongest protector of rights ever written into law by any society anywhere anytime.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[code1211]

We can prove that those 3 rights are, in fact, alienable. This means the founding fathers were wrong. The Constitution is wrong.

We have those rights as legal rights, not natural rights, because legal rights are the only kind of rights that exist at all.

I believe that the Constitution fails to include that word.

The fact that another person can steal something from me does not prove that the thing they steal does not exist.

In truth, the constant and unending campaign by some in governments through history to remove the rights of citizens actually proves that those rights you say don't exist actually do exist.

Removing those rights in whole or in part is considered to be punishment. Prisons ain't no joke and their primary purpose is to remove the unalienable rights that Jefferson observed and then defined.

The role of the Constitution in our Republic is protect, not grant, those rights from the oppressive wishes of the miscreants that might hold the levers of power from time to time.

Interestingly, lately, the greatest threats against our individual unalienable rights come from the mob, not the government. Perhaps Jefferson assumed this. Perhaps not...

Say the wrong thing in one decade and get kicked off the Academy Award podium in the next. The Constitution preserves your rights. Twitter assures your destruction.

 

[Wayne Jr]

I believe that the Constitution fails to include that word.

Yup. The FF included it in many of their works, and they were wrong to do so because all rights are alienable. The only rights that exist at all are legal lights, which can be changed, suspended or removed.

The fact that another person can steal something from me does not prove that the thing they steal does not exist.

It exists, but it's been alienated from you, which proves my point. It's not yours anymore.

Natural rights do not exist.

 

[code1211]

I am going to put something out here. I have a picture from Facebook. I'll try to get on something other than my phone later and post it.

Basically it notes that if I am providing life support for another, say in the form of blood transfusion, or something else, I, at any time, can stop providing that support. Even if it means that the other might die. I can stop giving blood directly to the other in the middle of the procedure even if stopping then kills them. It is that same principle of bodily autonomy that applies to abortion. By your logic, I would not have the right to stop, even if I didn't consent to the procedure, and woke up to find it going on.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

In that particular example, that might be the case.

However, a mother with an infant is considered to be the care taker of same and nurses the infant and keeps it warm, clean, safe and fed.

If the mother ceases those actions and the infant thereby dies, does the neglecting mother bear any liability in the death of the infant?

Google "Child Neglect" and you get about 30 million hits.

In the Movie "Bird Box", Sandra Bullock works through various issues blindfolded. Idiots in the real world have tried to mirror that activity.

Do these folks have the right to stop seeing the road in front of them while they drive their car blindfolded through a school zone?

At some point, once you have committed to a particular course of action, you have assumed the responsibilities to others that your choices carry.

 

[code1211]

False .
Under US code an unborn is not a human being/child/person/individual.

An unborn has no rights.

However states have rights and states can pass laws such feticide laws to protect potential live as long as they also protect abortion before viabiliblity for the pregnant woman or her legal guardian.

States may also proscribe( ban ) abortions past viability except in cases where the woman’s life is at risk or where irreparable damage ( such as: stroke, heart attack, paralysis from the neck down, liver or kidney damage etc.) would occur if the pregnancy continued.

As for Jefferson and the DOI please read my above post.

False?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45520-2004Nov12.html
<snip>
Peterson Convicted Of Double Murder

By Kimberly Edds and Amy Argetsinger
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 13, 2004; Page A01
REDWOOD CITY, Calif., Nov. 12 -- A jury found Scott Peterson guilty Friday of killing his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn child in the saga of suburban adultery and betrayal that transfixed much of the nation for nearly two years.

Peterson, a 32-year-old fertilizer salesman from Modesto, showed no emotion, staring stonily at the jury box as the foreman announced a finding of first-degree murder in the death of Laci and second-degree murder in the death of their near-term son, whom the couple had named Conner. Laci Peterson's parents wept in their courtroom seats, while outside the building, hundreds of onlookers cheered and pumped their fists when word of the verdict emerged.
<snip>

 

[code1211]

Yup. The FF included it in many of their works, and they were wrong to do so because all rights are alienable. The only rights that exist at all are legal lights, which can be changed, suspended or removed.


It exists, but it's been alienated from you, which proves my point. It's not yours anymore.

Natural rights do not exist.

Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your words for no other reason to change the meaning and then presents them as it they have not been edited?

Why did you suddenly start talking about NATURAL rights in the midst of a conversation about UNALIENABLE rights?

Jefferson's word has since been changed to INalienable.

However today's word carries the same meaning as his.

Jefferson specifically cited the origin of the unalienable rights to be the Creator, NOT a governmental entity. This is to reinforce the notion that the King could not remove these rights from the governed.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your words for no other reason to change the meaning and then presents them as it they have not been edited?

That's against the forum's rules. If you feel that's what I've done, which I don't think I've done, you are free to report my post for moderator review. I think all I did was cut out the fat of your post. So many people post more words than are necessary to get the point across.

Why did you suddenly start talking about NATURAL rights in the midst of a conversation about UNALIENABLE rights?

I didn't. They are the same thing.

This is to reinforce the notion that the King could not remove these rights from the governed.

Well, today the "king" absolutely can and regularly DOES remove rights from the governed. You have no argument.

 

[code1211]

That's against the forum's rules. If you feel that's what I've done, which I don't think I've done, you are free to report my post for moderator review. I think all I did was cut out the fat of your post. So many people post more words than are necessary to get the point across.


I didn't. They are the same thing.


Well, today the "king" absolutely can and regularly DOES remove rights from the governed. You have no argument.

Removing words changes the meaning. Are you really this dense?

Now you are saying that Jefferson was not particularly discriminating in the choice of his words? You are an interestingly impudent poster.

What rights have been removed from you that you care to present?

 

[soylentgreen]

Every word not defining the structure of government defines the limitation of the government.

To make it clear even to the most dense, the framers demanded that the Tenth Amendment be added to block the Feds from grabbing more power:

Here's what it says. Study it and absorb the FACT that this is the strongest protector of rights ever written into law by any society anywhere anytime.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This simply exemplifies your hypocrisy. You demand that your right to life be guaranteed but fail to show where in the constitution it is written while at the same time wish to ban abortions because the word does not appear in the constitution. Now you say that state government has rights to self determination that apparently the constitution does not effect your right to life but you still have to show why this then does not also apply to abortion. Or are you still hypocritically demanding that abortion needs to be a constitutional right while trying to pretend your own demand for rights does not.

 

[minnie616]

False?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45520-2004Nov12.html
<snip>
Peterson Convicted Of Double Murder

By Kimberly Edds and Amy Argetsinger
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 13, 2004; Page A01
REDWOOD CITY, Calif., Nov. 12 -- A jury found Scott Peterson guilty Friday of killing his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn child in the saga of suburban adultery and betrayal that transfixed much of the nation for nearly two years.

Peterson, a 32-year-old fertilizer salesman from Modesto, showed no emotion, staring stonily at the jury box as the foreman announced a finding of first-degree murder in the death of Laci and second-degree murder in the death of their near-term son, whom the couple had named Conner. Laci Peterson's parents wept in their courtroom seats, while outside the building, hundreds of onlookers cheered and pumped their fists when word of the verdict emerged.
<snip>

It was the state that convicted Peterson. The unborn has no rights, but states have rights in feticide cases.

States can and sometimes do protect non persons.

States cannot make first degree murder charges of a non person.

An unborn has no rights.

Think of states anti cruelty laws.

 

[southwest88]

If not pregnant? Then a theoretical right

Women have the right within the law to choose who gets born and who doesn't. Our laws now have elevated all women to demi-god status. Time to move on with this argument and any aspect of it. Women are now demi-gods get over it.

No, that's not it. A woman can choose to carry her pregnancy to term, or not. She has the right to choose for herself - beyond that, she would need to have recourse to the courts. So no, women are not demigods.

Women in general (in Western Civilization, @ least) have long known how to abort, if that was what they wanted to do. Between midwives & a good knowledge of herbs, women could choose to abort, pre-American Medical Association. Which is one reason that AMA was so hard on midwives, early on in the AMA's history in the US.

 

[Lursa]

At some point, once you have committed to a particular course of action, you have assumed the responsibilities to others that your choices carry.

Having sex using birth control is not committing to a pregnancy. It's the opposite. And women know they have a legal, safer option in abortion if they choose.

And their responsibilities extend to their current dependents (about 3/4 of women who get abortions already have at least 1 kid) which includes elderly, disabled, siblings, etc. It includes society as well...how responsible is it to have a kid you cant afford and will need to accept public assistance to raise? How responsible is it to produce another unwanted/unaffordable kid for adoption when there are already over 100,000 waiting in the US now for homes? It reduces those kids chances of finding a family.

The # of couples having unprotected sex is pretty low. At least 65% do use it, then another ~20% that are already pregnant or told they cannot get pregnant. But when you consider that people have sex millions of times a day in the US...even that 1-2% failure rate for bc can add up.

What's your opinion on people deciding to have less sex? Likely or unlikely?

 

[southwest88]

Beware of Greeks bearing ...

What does this mean? How do you terminate a pregnancy if one doesn’t exist?

Like picture asking if a right to bear arms applies to firearms, but the argument is in Ancient Greece. You can’t have an abortion without a pregnancy, I’m kind of confused...

Well, sure. But it wouldn't be a gunpowder-based weapon, it would be Greek Fire - circa 672CE. & of course there were the usual projectile weapons - bows, spears, darts, slings, & so on.

 

[Lursa]

This simply exemplifies your hypocrisy. You demand that your right to life be guaranteed but fail to show where in the constitution it is written while at the same time wish to ban abortions because the word does not appear in the constitution. Now you say that state government has rights to self determination that apparently the constitution does not effect your right to life but you still have to show why this then does not also apply to abortion. Or are you still hypocritically demanding that abortion needs to be a constitutional right while trying to pretend your own demand for rights does not.

This is interesting. Hmmm. Will have to think about this.

 

[southwest88]

Water, water, everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

Thank you for that clarification. That, IMHO, makes providing abortions conditionally legal but does not make it a right. Can anyone start an abortion business or must they have government permission to do so? For example, I have a right to mow lawns or wash cars for money - it requires no special government permission to do so at all.

That depends on local conditions & legislation. In high air-pollution areas, like parts of CA, you might need permission to run a small gasoline motor. If there are noise pollution laws, there might be a schedule of times & days that using a gasoline engine might not be permitted. & in areas suffering shortage of potable water, there might be limitations on when & for how long plants can be watered or cars washed - a rotating schedule, for instance. Although you might not need an individual permit - but it would be wise to inquire beforehand.