Wednesday, August 04, 2021
Commentary: The Case for the Unconstitutionality of Abortion
In the April issue of the conservative journal First Things, the esteemed natural law philosopher John Finnis wrote an essay titled “Abortion Is Unconstitutional.” Finnis’ basic argument was that the traditional conservative or originalist stance on abortion and the Supreme Court’s infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision—namely, that the Constitution is “silent” on the matter and that it is properly an issue for states to decide among themselves—is both morally insufficient and legally dubious.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Personally I believe abortion is murder and as such the constitution is not silent but for the sake of sanity I could go with bringing it back to a state issue. If a particular state outlaws it you're shit out of luck unless you go to one that allows it. Not a perfect solution but that is a losing issue.
ReplyDeleteJD
The Right seems fixated in this issue when abortion has declined in absolute and adjusted numbers below what it was seen Rose was new.
ReplyDeleteIts a waste of effort frankly.
As far as silent on the issue. Its not.
The 9th The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and 10th 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.
Both of these strongly imply bodily autonomy until the point a fetus can survive outside the womb with normal palliative care.
The "live on own" situation clause is needed to deal with the logical issue of late term abortion where the tissue has become enough if a person.
Until that point of development, especially in the first few week when most abortion take place its just tissue.
And if you want to bring up the drug war, . Its entirely unconstitutional on the same grounds prohibition required an amendment .
I reject your argument easily, as the Law already assumes a fetus/embryo is a person at the time of conception.
DeleteHow you may ask?
Simple. Kill a pregnant person. You'll be charged with 2 counts of murder. Which the Supreme Court has upheld.
So which is it? Is the Law that pregger murders counts as a double homicide correct or is the one saying it ain't hooman until it pops out and screams?
And there have been cases where attempted suicides of pregnant women turn into attempted murder of the embryo/fetus.
But it's A-Okay to go and flush the kid.
And then there's the whole parental rights thingy. Oh, the woman has sole right and custody of the impending child, therefore she has the ability to keep or flush the child.
But a father has no rights in regards to the impending birth, other than to have to pay for it for the rest of his life if the child survives. But if he wants the child alive and is willing to pay for neonatal care and take the child once it's born, well, he's shit out of luck, according to the Law and the Courts.
So which is it?
Is an embryo/child a person? You can be convicted for killing one (without a license) and can be forced by the Law to pay for it's neonatal care (and after). If these conditions exist, then the LAW considers an unborn child to be a person from conception.
Or isn't it a child? The law allows a woman and a doctor or other medical professional to kill the child. And the father of the child has no rights to the unborn child. therefore the unborn child isn't a person.
So which is it? Tell me? Please?
"The Right seems fixated in this issue when abortion has declined in absolute and adjusted numbers below what it was seen Rose was new.
DeleteIts a waste of effort frankly."
Right Wing virtue signalling akin to "raising awareness". It's how to show your loyalty to the cause without actually, you know, doing anything.
Hey 5stone, do you count Jews as people? What about blacks? Homosexuals? The mentally retarded?
DeleteWhere do you draw the line? Sheer tissue mass? Then if my left leg gets amputated, does it become its own person? Or development of tissue? Bad news there - they start growing right quick. And if it's organ development, then how do you count animals?
Science and medicine have been able to come up with ONE dividing line, before which there is definitely not an independent person, and after which the answer is "open to interpretation." That line is fertilization of sperm to egg.
Let me ask another question. Do you believe in innocence unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt? If so, then prove a 2 week embryo is not a person. Empirically, please. Or convict that embryo of a capital crime and sentence if to death.
If it is better to allow a hundred guilty men go free than to wrongfully convict one innocent man, how much more important is it too allow a hundred clumps of cells to live, in case they really are people?
Since I can only purchase a firearm in my state of residence, it seems only fitting that you can use abortion to stop a beating human heart in your state of residence.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Roe v. Wade is the answer to ObamaCare and the vaccination Nazis. You have medical privacy via Roe v. Wade. Why isn't anyone arguing that before the Supreme Court to get ObamaCare (which has multiple agencies tracking your medical history) overturned? Same for vaccination. It is unconstitutional for the government to ask such questions (yes, I know, since when has the current regime given two figs about the constitution).
Only a completely godless person would say the fight against abortion is a wasted effort, and then argue in favor of it.
ReplyDeleteI would support a law in favor of post birth abortions for supporters of abortion.
The effort to save the unborn is never wasted effort. And it’s not just tissue—it’s 100% human, 100% alive, and 100% unique.
ReplyDeleteI am with JD in my belief that abortion is murder.
Wow, 5stonegames. That's a pretty big leap in logic about the 9th and 10th amendments. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
ReplyDeleteSo tell us. At what week should we implement restrictions on abortion? Babies as young as 24 weeks are considered highly viable. But in some cases babies as young as 20 weeks have been successfully cared for and survived. Why not after a heartbeat is detectable? Or the nervous system develops? And who should be able to decide?
And if abortion is wrong after a certain date, why is it ok before than? Under normal conditions every "clump of tissue" will develop into a fully grown infant. And then into a unique and autonomous adult. From a purely physical standpoint we're all just lumps of tissue.
When the sperm enters the egg, forming a zygote, a human life is created.
ReplyDeleteKilling the innocent because they're inconvenient is murder.
Twisting morality and logic to justify it places you among such evil monsters as nazis, chicoms, and Margaret Sanger.
Ironic isn't it that only the ones who are alive get to argue about killing the unborn...If God knows us before we are even formed doesn't that mean at conception we have a soul and if someone snuffs us out then they have murdered one of Gods Children...
ReplyDeletea)
ReplyDeleteD&C is a medical procedure.
.
b)
1 -- How can I force a female to carry a fetus to birth?
Initiating the use of force goes against everything I know to be true and just and moral and ethical.
2 -- How can I force a male to provide for a child?
The individual either assumes responsibility or does not assume responsibility.
Forcing him to pretend to be responsible is bound to back-fire, ricocheting in unpredictable directions.
3 -- Statistics show approximately forty percent (40%) of children are not related to the male in the parent position.
Or is it eighty percent (80%)?
.
Please, do not try to change my beliefs.
Lists of theories, facts, religion, and 'law' are irrelevant to my experience.