Roe v. Wade

Post Reply New Topic

The assumption is, of course, that government is a business that should make a profit. The business generated by the delivery of snail mail is recuperated in the rise of taxable incomes from the business it creates.
Of course, if the army were based on business principles, with all that military strength we should be able to steal lots of valuable stuff from weaker countries. There's nothing like a good profit for expenditures.

Might wanna check who's manning the oil rigs in Iraq.

In theory, competing political parties should provide the competitive incentive to do well. In practice it does not work that way. The parties collude.

ruveyn

Of course! Exactly the way the Republicans are colluding with Obama.

I'll thank you now, on two counts. First, your admonishment to read the Constitution is valid, as I have yet to memorise it verbatim. My bad. Second, I learned a new word; adumbrated: 1) to outline in a shadowy way; sketch 2) to suggest beforehand; foreshadow in a vague way 3) to obscure; overshadow.

Next, for the purpose of clarity, and for the benefit of those, like myself, who do not have the Constitution memorised, I'll list the six pertinent Amendments to this debate.

First: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Third: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Fourth: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Fifth: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Fourteenth: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"

Now, your mention of "Griswold", although quite pertinent, is at least some 74 years after the fact of the first reference to the "right to privacy". In Union Pacific Railway Co. vs. Botsford, (1891), wherein Ms. Botsford, injured on the railroads sleeper car was suing, and the railroad attempted to subpoena her to undergo medical examination prior to trial. Justice Gray, writing for the majority, stated in part; "No right is held more sacred or is more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law."

"Griswold" is however a "landmark" case and is worthy of examination, as it is the first explicit declaration of a "right to privacy" by the court. Justice Douglas, again, writing for the majority, stated in part; "...specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." The key word here is "penumbras", deemed to mean: a vague, indefinite or borderline area. He went on to state "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system." Justice Stewart, in the minority, stated it is not for the courts to "substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies, who are elected to pass laws." Justice Stewart famously called the Connecticut statute "an uncommonly silly law", but argued that it was nevertheless constitutional. Justice Black, also in the minority, argued that the right to privacy is to be found nowhere in the Constitution. This case was under the auspices of the Warren Court, which has a reputation for rulings 'substituting their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies'.

Having made the leap "adumbrating" The First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to "implying" rights guaranteed by the Ninth, I submit that it is a small step indeed to infer a "right" to health care under the provisions of "life" guarantee explicitly stated in the Fifth and Fourteenth.

Another Warren Court decision in Gideon vs. Wainwright compels the state to provide legal defence in cases where the defendant is indigent.

Should you chose to perch on the slippery slope of implications, penumbras, and emanations as a basis for law, do not be surprised should you find yourself at the bottom, looking up and wondering how you got there.

The government does not push for infants to be issued ssn's. The only mandatory item is the birth certificate and parents are given the option to apply for their baby's ssn. Most, not all, parents do so because it is the only way they are allowed to claim them as deductions. It is clearly explained by the hospital staff that it is a choice. A ssn is not a contract, but a legal id # that is needed to be able to claim social security benefits as social security is a benefits program. There is no written or implied obligation to obey the laws of the land by having a ssn.

Babies born in this country are considered citizens (with or without a ssn) for simplicity. All persons in America are expected to follow the laws, and if they do not, their rights and privileges are taken away via the justice system (I'm not a fan of our justice system, but that's a whole other discussion). To have an actual swearing in for each citizen would be very costly and, frankly, disasterous. I'm not sure most would even pass the test. I heard somewhere that nearly 50% of Americans can't even name the 3 branches of government.

Yes they can. Larry, Moe and Curly.

ruveyn

I think you mean Larry, Moe, and Shemp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Stooges

From your own source:

"The original Three Stooges in their film debut, Soup to Nuts. Many fans forget that Shemp Howard (far left) was the original third Stooge before his youngest brother Curly Howard assumed the role."

Not to mention that Shemp returned later.

Of course the law supports my position.You are more than welcome to check for your own edification and satisfaction.

Yes I can. It is my body and I every right to remove things from my person. With regards to honouring some agreement, the agreement was to allow you to afix the item, not to continue to allow the item to remain fixed to me for some period of time or indefinitely.

You would be wrong. That I vandalized your property to remove it from my body, given no other means of immediately achieving this end would constitute a valid defense against criminal charges. It would be difficult to prove even a case for damages. That a court would grant an application for an injunction to prevent my removing the object causing its damage or destruction (were you to be able to lodge such an application before I acted) is highly improbable to the point of being legally implausible.

Further the courts are very unlikely to grant you any right to recover items if it requires someone else to subject themselves to invasive medical procedures.
If you do not implant anything inside me, you have certain rights. Those rights are not necessarily altered by you implanting something in me, and they most certainly do not include the right to dictate what medical procedures I undergo.

A person’s right to bodily autonomy does not require that they deal reasonably with everyone around them in all instances.

I very much doubt that you have sufficient familiarity with legal reasoning to form a likely opinion on the matter.

No one is contending that the interests or rights of any party should be ignored.

The law and the justice system are often required to evaluate, measure and to choose between competing rights and interests. It is not that anyone’s rights or interests are being ignored or not represented, it is that justice often requires that competing interests and rights be weighed against each other, with some interests not being upheld when they come up against rights and interests to which greater weight is attached. It is not universally possible to uphold all apparent rights and interests where they conflict with each other, and it is entirely common for one right to limit the application and effect of some other right.

And I fully support your and everyone elses right to choose to not drive to work.

In most cases I doubt that either party fully knows the risks entailed either pregnancy or abortion prior to the act. That is neither here nor there. The pertinent fact is that both parties would usually have (and in the context of consensual and lawful copulation, are responsible for having) knowledge about the potential consequences of the act. Those consequences are not the same for both parties, but the potential consequences for males are no less deducible than those for females. Both parties have a choice and both parties have the means and responsibility to access information about the potential consequences they personally face, prior to the act. Each party is choosing to risk the potential consequences that apply to them.

The male does not have ownership rights for bodily discharges that they have disposed of in such a manner as they cannot have a reasonable expectation of their return. The male does not have a right to dictate to some other competent adult what medical procedures they may or may not avail themselves of. So precisely what right of any male is involved at this point in the proceedings?

There is no double standard. The facts are quite simple. Both parties have a personal responsibility to access information and choose to avoid particular consequences. The consequences in circumstances relevant to this discussion are different for each of the initial two parties involved, because of biological facts that are beyond the control of the law, and beyond the control of arguers regardless what they are arguing for or about. The simple advice to any person is to consider the consequences they personally face and to avoid those consequences they personally find particularly objectionable.

No, society can merely constrain or facilitate the scope and range of consequences. Both parties face consequences at this point. Males may be less impacted by not being aware of the consequences in some instances. Various people will find the same consequences more or less burdensome depending on their personal attributes and circumstances. This is much the same with the consequences of most if not all acts. Note that the females cannot opt out of the absolute scope of her potential consequences either. Both acts and omissions have consequences and those consequences vary not only by the act or the omission, but also by the personal circumstances and attributes of the parties concerned. This is true whether society is involved or not.

No she is not.

Indeed it is quite impossible for society to facilitate an absence of consequences for her, even if society wished to. You might consider death, experiencing abortion (be it medically induced or spontaneous), and gestation and giving birth, to all be inconsequential, but in fact none of these are inconsequential. These are all very real consequences, and it is impossible for any women who is pregnant to avoid experiencing one of them.

Both males and females are already accountable, What you are arguing for is males being made less accountable at the expense of basic human rights of others and via the creation of extraordinary rights (for those males) that are quite inconsistent with law and wider social values.


No it is not. Your suggestion is very obviously inequitable, as can be deduced by the fact that you claim it is to resolve a lack of choice for males, by placing women in a position where they have that exact lack of choice, and additionally loose basic autonomy over their own bodies. If it is not acceptable for men to not have this choice, then it cannot be equitable to suggest women loose this choice instead. If it is inequitable for men as you claim then it would be equally inequitable to women, the only difference being that your suggestion requires women lose rights to bodily autonomy that men do not currently lose under the status quo.


That is nonsense. You are simply trying to make females the only ones accountable in instances where two parties were careless or unlucky. They both had choices, and as things currently stand, they both have to live with consequences.

Are you quite certain that women are allowed to give up children for adoption against the wishes of the father? That is not my understanding.
It is not the law’s job or role to punish people for an unwanted pregnancy, nor to ensure everyone is equally inconvenienced.
If the child is adopted out, neither biological parent will be obliged to pay a penny in child support.
So far as I know, fathers have the right to pursue custody of their children in such circumstances, and are not unlikely to achieve it. The mother will then be liable to pay child support.

I do not believe that mothers have the option of adopting out their children against the wishes of competent co parent fathers. Both have the option of agreeing to an adoption.
The fact is it is not the law’s role to ensure that everyone’s options are identical.

That is not a truth. You might think it is of no consequence to carry a life inside you for nine or so months then adopt it out to someone, but if so it’s probably because you have never experienced this.
The resulting fathers did have options including the option of preventing any of this from happening. The law does not cause the biological realities that limit and constrain the law’s scope to influence outcomes. It is not the law’s role to ensure that where people are careless or unlucky, that they experience exactly equal inconvenience, and the law is incapable of achieving such in these kinds of circumstances.

No, it is not. It is not equal that one person is born in poverty and another to rich parents who provide them with a lavish trust fund. All this is in accordance with law though. If the child of the poor people sought equity by trying to steal half the trust fund, the law would not consider this seeking of equity a defense against criminal charges of fraud or theft, even though it would be more equitable to split the trust fund between the two people.


It is more equitable than any of the solutions you offered.

You are quite incorrect. In the first instance there are many examples of rulings that are not consistent with the law’s stated aims, so providing evidence of the law not being consistent with society’s wider values is not necessarily a provision of evidence that the law’s goal is not to uphold such values.

In the second instance, you seem confused as to what is meant by “wider value”. Clearly if issues directly pertaining to abortion is described in some context as being at the level of detail, and juxtaposed against the concept of wider values, then what is being described by the phrase “wider values” does not include the “detail” regarding abortions.

The law is not capable of providing perfect equity. What you are arguing for constitutes a greater injustice than what you argue against. If you had your way, innocent new born children would be deprived of their rights to their detriment, to protect adult males who happen to be the father’s of those children, from the consequences of their own volitional acts. That is not just or equitable.


Apparently it is the way it works, otherwise what precisely are you complaining about? The law protects the rights of women to elect medical interventions or not (rather than stripping them of this right and giving someone they had sex with this authority over them), and it requires parents to financially support their legally recognized children/dependents.

There are a number of reasons why the child support laws are as they are. You almost appear to think that if you do not like these laws, it is reasonable to not argue against them, but rather to try to strip reproductive age females and/or innocent children of their rights.

Legal minors are a special class of person. The state limits and constrains their rights in ways that would be quite unacceptable in regards to other persons. A number of factors are involved, but significantly the situation is that the state has special obligations in respect of legal minors, and is ultimately responsible for protecting them and pursuing their rights. This is why the state can remove children from undesirable circumstances, taking them into the state’s custody even though doing so to adults in the same circumstance would be illegal. The state has an absolute onus and obligation to pursue the rights of legal minors.

At the same time the state has obligations to tax payers. Meeting obligations to children, without imposing burdens on the taxpayers, is considered to be best achieved by making legally recognized parents meet the costs of providing the child with the necessities of life.

Addressing the problems that may have arisen in respect of the pursuit of parental financial support, is not best done by attacking individual rights, individual autonomy and individual dignity. No instance of draconic state action/policy/conduct is best addressed by attacking the rights or individual bodily autonomy of ordinary citizens. On the contrary, what’s acceptable toward some group within the population, is thereafter easily condoned for other groups within the population. The right to choose to undergo medical procedures or not is an important element in the integrity of individual autonomy and citizenship empowerment.


I am well aware that the state is interested in directing costs away from itself. I am well aware that many tax payers are quite happy for this to be the case and actually feel quite strongly that this should be the case. The state has a duty of care to legal minors, and the taxpayer is not too keen to foot the bill. None of this is a good cause to go on a rampage against the rights of legal minors or some sub section of the ordinary citizenry. It is a good cause to oppose how the state is exercising its authority. Authority that is not derived from legal minors or a group primarily comprised of mothers, but of a group entirely comprised of legal adults, many of whom are fathers.


Autonomy does not end when another party brings itself into the situation.

No it is not. Generally, both parties can avoid their respective range of potential consequences by exercising sufficient caution. There is no suggestion whatsoever that women avoid consequences, and in fact I suggest it is physically impossible for women to become pregnant without experiencing consequences in respect of that. You might choose to ignore consequences because they cannot be visited on men, but that does not make them any less real or consequential.

Chronology matters at law. A right is created at some specific time, before then it has no legal force or bearing.

An alive human person is a rights bearing entity. The entity did not always exist and before it existed, its rights did not exist. Once it exists, from the moment it exists, it is endowed with all rights that entities with its legal attributes are legally entitled to, and those rights come into existence. Generally they are not backdated, and there is a strong tradition in law of avoiding retrospective effects.

The legal facts are that at one point in time, there is actually only one legal rights bearing person concerned; the mother who seeks to undergo or avoid medical interventions. At another point in time there are three legal rights bearing entities concerned. Two of whom have obligations to the third, the third being someone who the state has obligations to, such that the state might be entailed as a fourth party through their interests in upholding the third party’s rights.

Women do not generally speaking get pregnant as the result of unilateral action on their part. Both parties in the circumstances of lawful intercourse, had the same choice to avoid their respective consequences. The consequences are immediately different for both parties before the law intervenes. This is a biological reality that cannot be escaped. No matter what, the two initial parties, and in many instances a third party, will experience different consequences. The law cannot alter this fact.

It is not the law’s job or role to minimize these consequences evidently. If the law improves someone’s situation when they have not been legally impugned on, by mitigating the harm or inconvenience of their own volitional acts, while upholding the rights and values that apply more widely, this is nice and well, but the law is not obliged to step in and make the best of everyone’s bad situations. Nor is it the law’s role to ensure that where people get themselves in bad situations, every person is equally punished by the consequences that they experience.

While presenting this as though it were not a consequence, when in fact it certainly is a consequence, and a not insubstantial one at that.

It is not her unilateral choice to have created a circumstance in which there is a rights bearing dependent minor who cannot provide itself with the necessities of life. Both parties had a choice, both could predict the kind of consequences they faced.
Your suggestion that women in circumstances you describe bear no burden is ludicrous. Such a women has obligations to their offspring that are actually greater than the obligations of a non custodial but financially liable parent. A mother in the circumstances you describe must ensure that the actual necessities are not only paid for, but actually provided. Child support does not usually meet these costs independently of further financial contributions. And the day to day care for a child may be a joy, but it is also an ongoing, ever present burden. The legal sanctions for failing to meet this burden can be quite severe.

I have no idea why you imagine that makes the argument a non argument.

The law recognizes the rights of human legal persons as they apply at a particular time. At the time when abortion might be sought, there is no legal person in respect of the potential offspring. At the time child support payments are pursued by the state, there is such a person legally, and their rights exist legally. None of this detracts from my argument.

Not necessarily.

When a man is not implicated in a pregnancy, he has no rights to impose medical decisions on other competent adults, and both men and women generally have the right to make such decisions for themselves. Outside of getting someone pregnant, a man does not have a general right to avoid financial liability arising from his volitional acts, even where he acted in concert with some other party.

What you wish is for special rights to be created for men, while other people are stripped of rather basic rights. No rights of men are actually being violated because there is no standing right to not be liable for ones volitional acts, nor to assume authority over some other competent adult's medical decisions.

You are quite wrong. Copulating with someone does not endow one with any particular rights to or over them, or anyone else for that matter.

No, you are quite wrongly claiming that it is possible for a woman to be pregnant and not experience consequences in respect of that. Some of these consequences are consequences men do not experience, yet a women who is pregnant has no choice about going through at least one of them.

Additionally you seem to not understand that the law is not some kind of nanny whose task it is to ensure everyone in the nursery has identical outcomes. Not everyone has the same options and it is not the law’s job to universally alter this. Indeed the law cannot universally remedy divergence of available options, in this specific kind of instance particularly.

Correct.
The state is not allowed to steal (possess without lawful excuse) the property of others. The state pursues child support because of the volitional acts on the part of liable parents.

Such information does not shatter any illusions for me.

The fact is the right to the fruits of ones labour do not negate the obligations one might have to meet with those fruits. The right to the fruit of ones labour does not make one not financially liable for outcomes that would not have occurred but for one’s volitional acts.

The fruit of mens’ labours are not being stolen. It is questionable the extent to which the state fails to take into account the financial status of liable parents. Certainly I am not aware of any state where liable parents do not have a right to seek review of their liabilities, nor am I personally aware of any state that does not take the financial status of liable parents into account when assessing liability.


Given that such outcomes are only intended to occur where the child’s well being would be more harmed by contact with their particular non custodial parent, than it is by not having contact, it is not relevant in any way that supports the solutions you are positing.

Arguably if fathers and children are being victimized this way, this is not unrelated to the stereotype of mothers being the natural responsible agent in respect of children. Fathers being able to dictate that either an abortion occurs or the child goes without paternal support, would only increase the problems for the many fathers who are concerned for their childrens' well being and who wish to be involved in caring for their children.

Your suggestion that males should be able to prevent a woman from choosing to undergo a medical intervention would result in the rights of such women to choose to make their own medical decisions being violated. Your suggestion that males should gain some right to demand abortions would violate the right to reject intrusive medical interventions.

Both of these are potential consequences of pregnancy for females, only one is a potential consequence for males. Only if the right of the female concerned to elect to not carry through the pregnancy by choosing an elective medical intervention were violated, would either of them constitute a violation of any right though.

Well yes, they are somewhat. Which is not relevant really. The fact is the right to choose to undergo or not undergo medical interventions does not generally require that one prove the risk of not undergoing the intervention. There is little risk to not having botox injected in ones face for cosmetic purposes, but people may still elect to do so, without any recourse in respect of this decision being granted to someone who happens to have copulated with them.


The notion that people have to prove risk levels before exercising their rights to reject some risk is a fiction that does not apply in reality.

I have not argued that a child has rights before being born. No argument I have made relies on such rights existing at the time when elective abortions are allowable.

The problem with your irrelevant arguments in respect of this right is that you are treating the right as though it were a right to not be at risk. This is quite erroneous; the right concerned is a right to choose which risks to expose oneself to.
Nice of you to finally recognize this fact.

No, one is not just as another. People have a right to not be arbitrarily incarcerated which is why we cannot imprison people outside limited circumstances. The only party with any relevant legal rights or legal standing in respect of a woman opting in or out of elective abortion, is the woman concerned.

That is almost signature worthy material.

Pandd, you are correct.

Hmmm, there seem to be a problem with those assertions, and is the problem presented when it comes to late-term abortions, and the fact that they are illegal (with one exception that I know of), so the issue of wether she possess something inside of her body which would give her control of disposing it, it looks to apply only during the first trimester, which would be no longer the case after that time, and that is problematic for providing such argument to justifiy abortion.

The illegality of abortion (in some places) does not prevent it. For a short period of time, only the woman knows she is pregnant (during first trimester). In that time she can take steps. As you point out. Possession trumps the law. Knowledge trumps the law.

Even later term abortions can be obtained, discretely. Abortion cannot be prevented so it may as well be legal since it deprives no person of their rights.

One thing you overlook. Fetuses are not people and fetuses have no rights.

ruveyn

Well, about "overlooking that one thing", it's because that is actually meaningles when it comes to my post and the issue of abortion and its current legal status, and from that viewpoint, apparantely, it can be stated to be more about the protection of potential life rather than wether a fetus is a person or not.

And well, as the status of a fetus as a person seems to be still under debate, I don't see there is an actual consensus on the matter, rather it seems to be subjected to differing of opinions, and I just take them as that, given those are ethical/philosophical issues rather than scientific, despite of that, the issue is not as easy as it looks, under the law, there seems to be cases when a fetus personhood seems to be recognized to some extent and other cases, such as abortion it doesn't seem so, and that may seem problematic into defining or denying the personhood of a fetus, politically.

I really can't say wether a fetus is a person or is not a person, given that is not as simple as some may like to put it, and the philosophical nature of it, therefore I tend to not accept any simple argument provided as fact such as "fetuses are not people, period" because any claimed fact on that seems more of an ethical construct.

The issue about "overlooking such thing" is that because #1 That thing should be an actual fact in order for that to be overlooked, right? An opinion of that being a fact can be overlooked though, #1.5 Can be actually said that someone disagreeing with a statement is overlooking that statement? #2 I tend to reject simplistic/reductionist arguments as the final conclusion, #3 Statements from personal intuition, personal moral stance or anything personal, are a problem.

Something interesting is that the pro-choice moral justification to some extent may seem somehow utilitarian, in which case, I wonder if there would be the problem of making the personhood of the fetus irrelevant rather than denying it, given utilitarianism, just a little observation.

In any case, you are given more priority to the mother than a fetus, in all cases apparentely, no matter how long is the gestation, and it's quite clear you are providing a justification for that, I can say that denying the personhood of a fetus is quite a justification but I can't say is true.