Question for someone more educated than I on law and abortion
By MelZ Posted in Archived — Comments (66) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have a question. I recently posted his question to the liberals on the local liberal blog in my town.
The way I understand it, abortion is legal because the unborn are not yet human. Or at least up to a certain stage in most states they are not yet human. I am good so far?
Also, the way I understand it, if I were to kill a pregnant woman I could also be charged with murder of manslaughter of her unborn. Is this correct?
How in the same state can a baby be murdered during an abortion by the mother and then a person can be convicted of manslaughter of an unborn?
This is not meant to be a pro-choice/pro-life discussion. I am truly wondering how anyone can be convicted of manslaughter of an unborn if abortion is legal. Wouldn't a lawyer make a case of that if his/her defendant were on trial for such?
I could not get an answer from the libs. Anytime you question them on abortion you are a racist, chauvinist, backward, fascist ....well, you know the rest. They clearly were not intelligent enough to answer me this, as they immediately turned to name calling and blaming me and "mine" for an illegal war....blah, blah, blah.
I know here at RedState there are people intelligent enough to articulate a decent answer to this question.
THANKS
The right to abortion from Roe vs Wade is based on both a right of women to control their bodies and a right to privacy. However, that same woman does not have the right to sell her body for sex.
Yet what could be more private than sex, and isn't it exercising control over her own body?
The truth is that the ruling and the rights created by it are bogus.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Good point. I've actually never heard it put that way.
You'd be on very strong grounds (based upon this penumbral "right to privacy" except that the exchange of money (or other valuable consideration) means that we're adjoining a commercial transaction to a sex act between two consenting adult individuals.
Commercial transactions involving sex don't enjoy the same privacy shield that non-commercial sex would enjoy. States clearly have the right to regulate commercial transactions.
Whether and to what extent with respect to prostitution is, of course, a matter for debate - but such state scrutiny, so to speak, is not proscribed by the so-called "right to privacy".
Other potential portals for state action has to do with the effects on the safety and environment of the local neigborhood and neighbors (e.g. the broken windows theory of enforcement), or perhaps controlling drug trafficking and other illegal activities, or protection of minors.
Again, I don't want to start a discussion as to the merits of making prostitution illegal or to the merits of the other justifications for state involvement I mentioned above, just to note that privacy is not the only legal principle involved.
From the ruling, and subsequent rulings it is clear that the right to abortion was a PRIMARY right, overwhelming the rights if any of the newborn, and the rights or interests of any third party (husbands, parents of underage girls etc.)
Therefore I do not see any consistency in saying that making it a commercial action would somehow inviolate such a powerful right.
Sounds like sophistry to me. Or people trying vainly to justify a bad ruling.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
And I disagree strongly with the jursiprudence behind Roe v. Wade. However, I do agree that our Constitution has a bedrock principle of protecting individuals from overreaching governmental interference in our lives.
And I would agree that those who defend abortion on privacy grounds have constructed for themselves a higher hurdle to cross over if they want to ban prostitution.
But arguendo that one accepts the "right to privacy" as a constitutional emination, I still don't think it necessary as a matter of law that if you rank maternal privacy higher than the baby's right to life, you then also have to rank privacy higher than laws against prostitution.
abortion should only take place 1) for no money (or by extension insurance coverage) and/or 2) no one can help the woman perform the abortion.
___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!
(as opposed to how the baby got there in the first place)
I don't really see how you derived your conclusion from my line of argument.
I was saying that a right to privacy doesn't necessarily preempt laws regulating commercial transactions. This means privacy rights aren't an absolute barrier to making prostitution illegal.
In the case of abortion, indeed there are restrictions that arise from its being a commercial transaction by virtue of it being a paid service. For instance, there are regulations as to who can perform abortions and restrictions regarding the education and training of the arbortionist(s) and other medical support personnel.
I got to my conclusion based simply on the transaction for money negating the "privacy" foundation of abortion. Hey, I didn't say it made sense :)
___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!
Else he'd have used ne
:>(
soli Deo gloria
sure the abortionist must be a doctor but do you have any evidence that the "medical support personnel" are required to have any particular training?
I ask this seriously because abortion clinics are currently exempted from the same licensing requirements imposed on a walk-in ambulatory care clinic. In the two or three states that have tried to force abortion clinics to have a minimal licensing requirement they have been met by legal challenges.
So I really doubt that you will find a positive licensing requirement for much of the staff.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
An abortionist does not HAVE to be licensed as a doctor in all states. Arizona is trying to make such a law since nurses were doing abortions and the state's nurses association decided abortions could be done by nurses. A nurse there was doing them for lack of willing doctors.
The UK is currently attempting to repeal the doctor requirement.
Several states have put in place facility licensing requirements. They usually only put the ambulatory care clinic requirements on second trimester abortions. These have been upheld by courts. Even so, because abortionists (by nature of their work) inherently cannot handle any standard of care, such laws have significantly reduced the number of abortion centers.
Sadly, the minimal requirements that exist and have been upheld in courts are almost never enforced. If they were, some states would be all out of abortionists. Who is going to check to see the age of a baby killed in a first-trimester facility? Who would enforce the born alive protection act or partial birth abortion ban either? Many in law enforcement are afraid of the judges (and the way the media will portray them) and do not do anything.
that abortion does not involve the exchange of money?
Really the difference is that in one case a woman gets money for the use of her body and in the other she gives money for the use of her body.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
General Welfare!
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I was not trying to say that abortion does not involve the exchange of money. Of course non-spontaneous abortion clearly is a commercial transaction (except under extremely rare conditions) and indeed is subject to state regulation (and is in fact regulated) on that basis.
Kyle8 was trying to argue that a right to abortion logically led to a right to provide prostitution services for sale. His basic argument rested the syllogism that 1) women had a right to abortion based on privacy and the right to control their bodies; 2) sex is a more private act than abortion; 3) prostitution thus has a Roe v Wade level of protection on privacy grounds because it involves sex; 4) prostitution represents a woman exercising control over her body; therefore 5) a woman has a right to be a prostitute.
I argued that 1) prostitution is also a commercical transaction rather than being a purely private act; 2) the state historically has a right to regulate commercial transactions; 3) therefore the right to prostitution is not a fundamental right (under the penumbra of privacy) but is subject to state regulation (including banning).
First, I was not defending the right to privacy, etc. that underlays Roe v Wade; I do not agree with that jurisprudence.
Second, I was NOT saying that abortion does not involve the exchange of money. Indeed, while the Supreme Court has decided that a woman has a right to an abortion, that right is regulated by the state when the women purchases abortion services - and this precisely rests upon the state's right to regulate commercial transactions.
For instance, only some people can legally provide abortion services; a woman does not have the right to have an abortion performed by any individual she chooses. An abortion provider, in turn, has to meet various state regulations e.g. use of licensed staff, facility requirements, record-keeping, waiting periods, etc.
What Roe v Wade did (wrongly in my view) was to unduly impinge on the state's traditional right to regulate commercial transactions by forbidding the state from outright banning abortions performed with a certain time window. The line between permissible regulation vs. banning, of course, remains an active area of ongoing litigation.
I agree with kyle8 and think that you ignore the fact that regulation of commerce cannot be used as a reason to regulate abortion and misstate the extent to which the state can regulate abortion in the first two trimesters.
Abortion is hardly a private act. I mean there is a billion dollar industry out there catering to it.
And actually abortion is pretty unregulated. There are no record keeping requirements in many states. Clinics are not subject anywhere to the same licensing procedures as ambulatory care clinics.
In fact, governments may ban certain medical practices (like selling of organs, for instance) but abortion is exempted from the usual regulatory regime.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
1) I was arguing that legalizing abortion does not mandate legalizing prostitution and identifying one basis (the commercial transaction aspect) on which prostitution could be regulated or banned.
2) I agree that from what you and others have written here, it does appear clear that the courts have curtailed the state's ability to regulate the commercial aspects of abortion. This is still another societal blight resulting from legalized abortion, in that additional consequences of legalized abortion include allowing substandard treatment that endangers the woman while denying her redress; it also enables child molesters and rapists to cover-up their crimes through willing co-conspirator abortionists.
3) Nonetheless, that the courts have aborted regulatory oversight of abortion does not therefore mean that prostitution must also be allowed to escape soceietal oversight. I don't see the kyle8's logic that one legal wrong (legalizing abortion) short-circuits society's ability to ban a second wrong (legal prostitution).
4) If you believe that legal abortion ipso facto deprives the state of the right to ban prostitution, then we do have a disagreement. I'd leave it up to you as to the appropriate venue to elaborate such an argument (if you feel it's worth your trouble).
Then again, since the courts are not likely in the near future to either reverse Roe v Wade or to mandate legalizing of prostitution, probably our energies are better spent directed towards those issues in the public arena whose resolution is in active dispute.
liberal thinking has to be sensible, logical and consistent??? Is it in the proverbial fine print??? I haven't seen anything like that espoused anywhere by any great 'liberal' person.(I wanted to say 'thinker' but I'm not sure there are any!)
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
These are clearly, as Leon points out, incompatible positions. And not that legislatures are exactly *smart* or anything, but these are the sorts of things that should have always been left to the legislatures, and by extension, the people.
Eventually these things would be sorted out to some sort of comprehensible degree. But the courts do this exotic snake dance. Left-wing activist judges know what they want to do, but they have to play games involving stare decisis (precedent), they have to at least pretend to give credence to the Constitution, state constitutions, and existing statutes, all in the pursuit of imposing their will by fiat - while PRETENDING not to.
It leads to all sorts of the worst kind of chaos.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Is that providing Law Enforcement with the necessary tools to prevent it would be worse than the current state of affairs.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The issue in abortion jurisprudence, as stated above, is whether the woman has a right to control her own body. In the case of an abortion, the woman is making an affirmative choice to terminate "a part of her body."
In the double-murder situation the argument is this: The woman has within her the potential for life. Her intent is to carry that potential within her until it is a life. Therefore, but for the act of the murderer, the life would have been born.
In the abortion case the potential for life would become life but for the act of the aborter AND the intent of the mother, without which the aborter won't abort.
Therefore, it focuses on intent of the mother.
It's not unsimilar to a lost profits claim for damages in a civil suit. If I close my business of my own volition, the corporation I formed can't sue me for lost profits. But if a tortfeasor puts me out of business such that I can't make any more profits, then I can sue. It all depends on the intent of the "owner/mother."
How's that? Now, let me go wash off after having to compare a child to lost profits in order to support liberalogoy.
If a woman is driving to an abortion clinic for an abortion, gets an a wreck resulting in the death of her unborn, would she have a civil case?
I understand that the abortion issue relates to the woman's right to her own body, but in making the case you are calling the unborn not human. Therefore it does not seem that an "unborn" could ever be "killed" since it is not a human no matter the intent of the mother.
Glad I did not go to law school, I don't think I get a long with such gray areas....
MelZ
By biological definition, the life is not potential but actual from fertilization on. That human life is not a "part" of her or anyone else's body because he or she is a whole body.
see for instance. The girl wants an abortion, the boyfriend lends a helping hand. He goes to jail--and not for practicing medicine without a license. She doesn't.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
I don't see a necessary logical inconsistency here.
Statutes permitting abortion do not have to be predicated on an assertion that unborn babies are not human. Some pro-abortion advocates may believe that, but many will view that statement as a metaphysical statement, not a legal one.
Rather, my understanding of the predicate theory is that the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion (based in turn on a penumbral "right to privacy" and/or control over what to do with her body, etc.) trumps the unborn child's right to continue living.
In practice, while justifying or "selling" to the citizenry this hierachy of rights usually involves treating the baby as non-human or sub-human (or "potential life") etc., the legality of these statutes does not require elevating such an attitude to a legal principle.
Indeed, as I understand it, laws making killing an unborn child by third parties a crime are based not primarily on the unborn child being a human being, but rather upon the principle that the mother's choosing to carry this baby (rather than aborting it) embues the baby with a right to live comprising continued gestation up to birth; and thus the premature termination of that pregnancy constitutes unlawful deprivation of that baby's life (i.e. manslaughter or murder).
Again, this is just locating the baby's rights within a larger heirarchy of rights. I don't agree with the hierarchy, but it's not irrational.
My problem with the issue, is abortion no matter what your stand, is stopping of a beating heart (I guess depending on the stage of pregnancy, the heart is a fairly an early developed organ, I did not do so well in science) which means it is "killing". So in essence abortion could be considered legalized killing. But killing is not legal, so the "baby" must be classified as something not human. If it is a human it would be murder. If it is not human it cannot be murdered/manslaughtered....(I don't think that is a word).
Perhaps I am coming at this from a ideological stance...I am pro-life, but have never considered myself to be too strong on the issue. In other words the abortion issue is not the priority issue for me as I know it is for some.
In talking to some liberals, I began to wonder WHYYYYY the abortion issue is such a hot one for them, which got me wondering how the legality of it all works. Not being too emotionally involved in this issue, I don't feel I am coming at this emotionally but more logistically.
MelZ
The problem is with your statement
...killing is not legal
At present in the U.S., our laws do define certain forms of killing as legal. Killing people (enemies) during military operations is legal. Capital punishment (state-administered killing) is legal. Self-defense is legal. I think some jurisdictions still will not prosecute people who killing adulterous spouses caught in flagrente. None of these involve treating those who are killed as being something not human.
We'll have to find other grounds for banning abortions.
The problem is with your statement
...killing is not legal
At present in the U.S., our laws do define certain forms of killing as legal. Killing people (enemies) during military operations is legal. Capital punishment (state-administered killing) is legal. Self-defense is legal. I think some jurisdictions still will not prosecute people who killing adulterous spouses caught in flagrente. None of these involve treating those who are killed as being something not human.
We'll have to find other grounds for banning abortions.
I clicked from this thread over tp Ann Coulter's latest column. Her opening line perfectly describes your experience on the liberal discussion board:
"You always know you've struck gold when liberals react with hysteria and rage to something you've said. "
Good job!
But, I have read all of her books. In "If Democrats Had Any Brains..." she opens with a statement about how when arguing with a liberal, it will ultimately turn into them calling you stupid. I was really hoping to prove her wrong on this, to get into an articulate conversation and gave several opportunities, but at the end my questions never got close to being answered.
I was instead asked questions, when I answered I was told that my statements were full of anecdotes/no substance. Then ultimately I was told to shut the f*&$% up. So, I withdrew from that site, they proved what we all know.
MelZ
of her columns it's pretty close to it!
Though I may not be more educated on law or abortion, I am a blowhard so I will say something here.
I tend to agree with civil truth's line of reasoning. You could construct a legal system where someone's right to live is below another's right to do what they want on their property. After all even slavery was legal and fit perfectly in the legal system until the legal system got amended.
I do disagree though with civil truth on the question of irrationality. I think it is irrational to place the right of a child 5 minutes prior to birth to live below the right of a mother's whim no matter how you construct the legal system. I don't base rationality on whether or not the laws contradict, but on the actual content of the law. For instance I think a legal system whose only law was "Be nice" would be a highly irrational legal system even though it wouldn't contradict itself. But I'm just arguing over the word "irrational" in reference to the legal system with you.
As far as MelZ's problem, the two laws (or theories of law?) do appear to be constucted by opposing parties. I don't see too many hard left politicians proposing any kind of legal protection to pregnant women for the child their carry. And I also don't see too many hard right politicians (actually I rarely see hard right policitians ever, but that is a different discussion) proposing privacy laws.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
Of course, I've played that role myself at times, but I'm not used to being on the receiving end.
Actually, when I was reviewing my reply, I debated with myself for about a full minute whether to change the word "irrational" back to "inconsistent" but decided it wasn't that big a deal and went with the change in term. (As a matter of style, I like to vary my word choices when possible, to make my writing more interesting.)
I won't argue the point, since either word would suffice regarding my overall line of argument (distasteful as it was to have to elucidate it).
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
So I know quite a bit about the ethics of abortion, but little about the legal reasoning behind it. Ethically I believe it is wrong (although most Doctors are either to liberal or too spineless to take this stance) because it violates one of Western culture's oldest ethical traditions. As stated by St. Augustine, the basis of all ethics is that one should "Love people and utilize things", when love and utilization are placed in the inverse situation you have something that is unethical. Abortion is unethical because it places a woman's love of convieniance, finances, hopes for the future, her body ahead of an unborn child and treats the child like a disposable thing (a tumor, wart, or roman noze to be opperated on). Abortion is at it's core hedonistic (an older Roman idea of ethics-"that which brings about the pleasureable life is good" which has been largely rejected since the fall of Rome.)
And I know what you pro-choicers are thinking "Isn't the mom a person too? Isn't being against abortion not loving a person??"--not at all. Abortion kills a person-ending their chance at life, development, happiness, and being. While motherhood has its difficulties, it can provide opportunities for personal growth, wisdom, and self actualization. Forcing a pregnant woman to carry to term does not treat her like a thing, but demands that she act as a responsible person. It is possible to extend Augustine's ethical principal to mothers while denying them their "right" (no such right in the social contract) to choose.
He is one of the few I know that is pro-life, glad to see you on this side of the fence ;)
MelZ
Your opening sentence had me cheesed off before I read the well reasoned rest of your post. I've known a few people in the medical field (mostly in-laws) who tell me in as nice a way as they know that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to medical ethics. I must admit that when someone says "I'm in medicine so I know what I'm talking about", my gut reaction is to think "you arrogrant ****". But I was happily surprised with the rest of what you wrote.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
As for the other Doctor's don't listen to them too much about abortion--to tell the truth abortion is rarely discussed in med-school except to remind students it is a patient's legal right and that if they want one you must refer then to a clinic who will do one.
I know more about it from my own research on ethics than from med-school lectures (from formal rather than medical ethics). The reason I went with formal ethics is that they deal with morality, while Medical ethics deal mainly with the Doctor/patient relationship and patient autonomy. Using "medical ethics" out of the context of formal ethics many Doctors have been brainwashed to think abortion and other social issues are none of their business and are solely within the scope of patient autonomy instead of physician responsibility.
I obviously feel differently.
Many other Doctors do too--to find these doctors look up CMDA (Christian Medical and Dental Association)
There are some of us out there who believe we can take a stand against poor and immoral medical practices
My wife and I have trouble trying to find pro-life doctors. Sometimes we just settle. It isn't that I mind so much having to disagree with my doctor as much as the stubbornness and condescension I receive when I make my morals clear. For example, after my wife had our first child, her obygyn (or whatever that's called) told us that we should start birth control or whatever for 2 years. I explained "we're Catholic so what else do you suggest?". We just got this eye-rolling disgust during which I just bit my lip and thought about bunnies and rainbows or something. And another time I explained to our pediatrician that we aren't paying for vaccinations derived from aborted fetal tissue. This pretty much ruled out the chickenpox vaccine (and a couple others). Our pediatrician looked at me and asked "and what happens when she catches chickenpox?" I answered "We'll make sure she gets it young like I did" She said "Do you know people die from that disease?" I answered "In America? How many?" I know she meant "complications involving" but that is such a BS argument anyway. She gave me such a condescending lecture. I basically just put my foot down and asked for the waiver/form/whatever I had to sign so they wouldn't be liable.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
I've been in Med school 3 years and didn't know that Varacella was cultured in cells derived from aborted embrio. So are a few others (but there are rabbit and monkey cultures available as well). I just had a Varavax and feel horrible!! I can't beleive the drug companies arn't required to disclose this!!
I heard that there are a few that came from a single baby back in the 60's. Someone in the military recently sued so he wouldn't have to have one. There aren't any that rely on a supply of dead babies though.
RA27 seems to have come from an aborted baby in the 1960's. This cell line was then hybridized with a cancer cell line to make an immortal cell line that vaccines can be grown in. So yes one fetus did die to bring us some vaccines, but the vaccines are not relying on a continuous supply of dead babies but from cells derived from one baby. Incidentally this baby was aborted because it was infected with Rubella, and may not have been able to make it to term. I still dislike that a human embrio was used, but this is better than using fresh fetal cells from recently aborted fetuses, and seems less objectionable to me, especially seeing that a child with Rubella who was aborted saved thousands of other unborn children from contracting the disease.
If anyone has more information on this I'm definatly interested. I don't want protection from fairly survivalble diseases at the expense of unborn life, but am ok with immortilizing the cells of a child who was aborted for medically indicated reasons (Rubella Encephalopathy)
I did some research, and there are no vaccines that rely on a supply of dead babies. I doubt it will be long though before some mad scientists try to make one.
I don't think I said that a steady supply of aborted babies was needed. I just said that some vaccines were derived (wrong word?) from aborted babies. I gave a link below this post too to what I've been taught.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
But this is the info I've seen and has been confirmed to me by several pro-lifers I know including a couple of doctors. So I try to go off that list as best as I can, but being the lay-dude that I am, I get the feeling that some are slipping past me due to different marketing names. I don't remember what it was they called the chickenpox vaccine they were going to give my daughter, but I recall them saying Varivax or Varilrix. Since I saw the "None" on the "Ethical" column, I'm guessing people are just using different words to mean the same thing (not necessarily in any kind of underhanded way).
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
here's the CMDA website to search for Christian Doctors
If that's true, the medical schools are being dishonest. It is a violation of law to require doctors to refer for abortions or reprimand them if they do not. It's probably irrelevant though. There was a recent case in California involving the law, and a judge threw it out because the doctors in the case who would not do referrals had never been asked for any (or no woman had complained). Sadly, all one has to do is open to the first page of the yellow pages.
It's not even a true "legal right" either as I discussed elsewhere on here. I often wish more pro-life people picketing abortion centers would go picket the medical schools that teach this (and especially the schools that teach abortions). I know one group protests the annual ACOG conferences, and I wish many more would join them.
Unfortunatly as a doctor you are required to ensure transfer of care of your patient. If a patient wants a service you won't provide and wants to part ways and find another Doctor, you have to refer them to another doctor and transfer their record to ensure continuity of care. So you don't have to do abortions, but you do have to transfer care at the patient's request. Psych is the only area of practice that I know of where this is not the case.
That is obviously not the case. There is a federal law prohibiting such discrimination. As I mentioned, it was challenged last year. There are doctors who will not refer, and it is illegal to take action against them. ACOG came under fire recently for almost taking the position that an abortion referral was an obligation for doctors who won't do them. I know what I am talking about, and the law explicitly prohibits it.
The first issue has to do with not being forced to refer a questioner to an abortion on the basis of conscience.
The second has to do with the responsibility for continuity of care. Abortion would be very thorny under this doctrine, it would seem to me. First, referral is different than ongoing care and I'm not sure that a doctor is required to provide a referral to someone offering a service that the patient desires. In any case, a referral is a courtesy, not a requirement.
Continuity of care would apply when a doctor no longer wishes to continue to treat a patient and to end his medical relationship to that patient - he then has an duty to see that someone else takes his place and to transfer records to them so that the patient is not abandoned and without a treating physician. I don't see how this applies to referrals.
Stop the next generation of Doctors form becoming social engineering liberals.
Sad But True-abortion was originally made illegal when Medicine was first being professionalized and conscionable doctors objected to the practice
There are no medical schools close enough to me. Even so, I don't believe any of those in North Texas train for abortions. I don't know what they teach about abortion if anything, but I would imagine it would not quite compare to Yale.
Fortunately, the medical schools are not producing many abortionists today. The majority seem to come from Africa and Asia.
Still, today I suppose conscionable doctors are few and far between.
"majority seem to come from Africa and Asia"
Actually many, if not most OB/Gyns will perform what is called a D&C or dilation and curitage. It is an outpatient abortion procedure possible in the first trimester. The cervix is dilated medically with mifepristone/mifeprostol and the endometrium and embrio is scraped out. Sure most later term abortions are done in the OR by foreigners, but the majority of abortions are D&C's and are done in the Gynecologists office.
But how many of those doctors actually want to go into the abortion business or even perform them routinely? At some level, they must see something wrong. At least two states have to fly in an abortionist from out-of-state. Most of the abortionists, especially the later-term ones, seem to be from Africa or Asia. They also seem to not have much more regard for the women who come in. They are just dollar signs.
As far as the woman's rights, this phrase "force to carry to term" is ridiculous. That sounds as silly as saying one doesn't want to be forced to go to the bathroom. Where is my right to an ileostomy? Pregnancy is forced by the woman's body, not by the government. Besides, these people don't care about "choice." Planned Parenthood has gone mad in several states trying to defeat laws that would prevent forced abortions.
In practice, the "choice" at issue is the doctor's. It never was and never would be an issue for a woman to choose an abortion; it would only be illegal for someone else to grant that request. That is not the same thing. That is why Roe was not written for women but for doctors, and it puts those with a medical license above the law.
"States clearly have the right to regulate commercial transactions."
Since abortions aren't free what's the differance? Is it because the woman is paying instead of getting paid? If so then what happens if we started paying the mother for stemc ells? Would abortion be legally the same as prostitution?
My personal take is that the laws are contradictory because they were drawn up by rabid athiestic feminists who want to have their cake and eat it to, and thus can't even consent to being confined by their own logic
First off, and most importnatly, everyone knows an unborn child is fully alive and fully human (not just "potentially" so). That is biological fact and not a matter of opinion or belief. So of course Roe made no such statement. It said the unborn were not "persons" to refute that the unborn had a Constitutional right to life.
Second, it is important to note that Sandra Day O'Connor overruled (sub silentio) and redid Roe in 1992 with Planned Parenthood v Casey. The ruling no longer rests on "privacy" because that word is not to be found in the opinion. Of course anyone who has gone through elementary school would know abortion hasn't got a thing to do with privacy. Services offered to the public are not Constitutionally protected "private" acts. If there were such a right, we'd have to eliminate most laws currently on the books. No one with half a brain could claim that installing a 3.6 gpf toilet is not far more private. If the term were broad enough to include abortion, then we'd need to be in a state of anarchy.
The ruling now rests on "liberty" to define one's own "meaning of life and of the universe." More importantly, the standard of review was also changed to theoretically allow regulations. Of course in practice, even these regulations are not enforced. They are unenforceable and meaningless too given any requirement of a "health" exception.
Third, I refuse to acknowledge abortion is legal in states that have not explicitly made it so. The Supreme Court does not have the power to make law. The issue to me is what the states do in terms of their law enforcement and legislatures. If I were in an enforcement position such as governor, I would ignore the court ruling and enforce the statutes on the books. I would vote to enact provisions directing the governor to do so were I in the legislature. Unfortuntely, we live in a society where too many people worship and bow down to the judiciary (by blindly accepting their words as truth). What they write about the Constitution or law is not the Constitution or law.
The court decisions have included lies that were based on lies, as well as made-up stuff (like "privacy" which didn't even need to be made up because it doesn't do any better to justify the result). The argument in the original Roe ruling essentially implied that they don't know where the right is, but it is too essential not to be there. O'Connor later followed up by implying that it doesn't really matter whether it is a right because the court's reputation is too important, and it would look bad if they said they screwed up.
As far as the murder statutes, there was a recent ruling by the Texas Supreme Court dealing with the state's law that essentially says any abortion not done by a licensed doctor under the state's regulations is murder. It may clarify some questions as well as one possibly could.
A state can make almost any distinctions it wishes on different types of killing (homicide, manslaughter, murder in varying degrees, etc.) and justifications (self-defense, insanity, etc.) for it. It can have various penalties too. There is not some nationwide legal standard to spell out the various types and defenses for killing.
Ultimately, it all boils down to what the state is willing to enforce. Something is not legal just because a state does not enforce it. Similarly, it is certainly not necessarily legal because a judge declares it so. Right now, abortion is not necessarily legal; the laws against it just aren't enforced (even ones the court has theoretically permitted).
Very enlightening, very well thought out. Thank you
MelZ
"There is not some nationwide legal standard to spell out the various types and defenses for killing."
But like many an argument I get into about things like the HLA in relation to the principles of Federalism, I'd like to point out that there is an unmentioned/undefined threshold which a state cannot cross before the feds will be forced by popular opinion to impliment a nationwide standard. There is no pressing need for one now since most states have reasonable laws. But when one state decides to be for murder what Nevada is to prostitution, that's when public opinion would shift and a legitimate need for federal interference perfectly in keeping with the principles of federalism would exist.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
at least as far as logic goes is:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer... In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake."
Which is essentially "We don't know when life begins, therefore rather than err on the side of caution, we will pick live birth and say no other theory counts as important enough to override our predetermined ruling."
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Actually, that is a blatant, outright, bold-faced lie. We DO know when life begins, and we've known since the early 1800's. There is no dispute on that since it is a biological term with a clear biological definition. There is a consensus, and it is not subject to theory or opinion. It's only "difficult" if you are trying to pull one over on the people. There is no need to err because the facts are certain.
Funny though that someone who is "not in a position to speculate" seems to have done just that.
Of course, the whole right is a lie. No "rights" of any pregnant woman, especially Jane Roe (aka Norma McCorvey) were "at stake."
The whole thing is a logical fallacy and some inconsistency on two slices of lie. The whole thing smells like a **** sandwich.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
are not simultaneously defensible. One or the other must be unjustified. I'll let you guess which one they'd pick.
------------
