It depends on how you look at Roe vs Wade. Have you read it?
I guess most people have not, as it is somewhat tedious. Really, there are some real gems to see.
1. **Abortion is a natural right, acknowledged in common law. A right, though not enumerated, reserved by the people **
2. Statutory law supersedes common law due to state interest growing dominant as the foetus grows to viability
3. Medical advances bear upon the question of viability so, we have a slippery slope.
4. The state has in interest in protection of life. So it must provide for a standard of sound medical procedures.
5. The state can proscribe an abortion
5. It leaves it to each state to do their thing.
When I read it, I was glad to see the acknowledgement of abortion being a personal decision rooted in the right belonging to the people. This is the basic principle upon which Liberty rests.
I was glad, the court held, that state interest in protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, should warrant a state to facilitate, by offering standards of sound medical procedure. That does not infringe upon the enjoyment of liberty, it helps to exercise it.
What I found disgusting was that out of nowhere it is unchallenged that the state has a dominant interest in pre born fetuses where the cutoff is viability, base on technical issues.
And because of this interest, that simply is inserted into the conversation and never challenged, just accepted as a given, the woman, being a citizen enjoying the full rights, suddenly becoming a ward of the state, incapacitated to make up her own mind.
That laws restricting abortion may have medical background, is not in dispute. The reason restriction of abortion are put into place are usually religiously fuelled. It is a legislating of morals. That is not being argued at all.
This should not be.
Those pro life, like me, are perfectly content to live the way we see fit. And should a pregnancy occur that was not planned on, well we have to live with it, right? We are not forced into an abortion, we discuss with our family and together we get through it (with the help of God)
For those pro choice, like me, we want the same thing. We are perfectly content to live the way we want, dispose of our own property as we see fit and not have the state turn us into slaves. And, we are perfectly happy to reach out to those who want to help us with private money, as long as the procedure is medically sound and clean.
Why did the court make a monstrosity of this? It was the perfect case to put liberty and the preservation of liberty first. The court did not do that. It muddied the water.
And I find it incomprehensible that people fear this decision will be overturned. The right to abortion cannot be overturned, as that is a natural / common law thing. If you overturn that, the court would essentially say: you only have rights when enumerated. Away with the 9, 10 and 14th Amendment.
What should be overturned is the notion that a state can proscribe on the basis of a imaginary interest in prenatal fetuses and thus may set time frames when a foetus is viable based on new technology and thereby depriving a citizen without warrant of reserved rights.
But you don't hear those SJW on that. They fear something that is not there. But overlook the actual insult to injury: All of a sudden it becomes women's rights. Bullshit. It is about a reserved right of all citizens. So much for inclusiveness of those SJW-types.
view the rest of the comments →
redtoe_skipper ago
It depends on how you look at Roe vs Wade. Have you read it? I guess most people have not, as it is somewhat tedious. Really, there are some real gems to see. 1. **Abortion is a natural right, acknowledged in common law. A right, though not enumerated, reserved by the people ** 2. Statutory law supersedes common law due to state interest growing dominant as the foetus grows to viability 3. Medical advances bear upon the question of viability so, we have a slippery slope. 4. The state has in interest in protection of life. So it must provide for a standard of sound medical procedures. 5. The state can proscribe an abortion 5. It leaves it to each state to do their thing.
When I read it, I was glad to see the acknowledgement of abortion being a personal decision rooted in the right belonging to the people. This is the basic principle upon which Liberty rests. I was glad, the court held, that state interest in protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, should warrant a state to facilitate, by offering standards of sound medical procedure. That does not infringe upon the enjoyment of liberty, it helps to exercise it.
What I found disgusting was that out of nowhere it is unchallenged that the state has a dominant interest in pre born fetuses where the cutoff is viability, base on technical issues.
And because of this interest, that simply is inserted into the conversation and never challenged, just accepted as a given, the woman, being a citizen enjoying the full rights, suddenly becoming a ward of the state, incapacitated to make up her own mind.
That laws restricting abortion may have medical background, is not in dispute. The reason restriction of abortion are put into place are usually religiously fuelled. It is a legislating of morals. That is not being argued at all. This should not be.
Those pro life, like me, are perfectly content to live the way we see fit. And should a pregnancy occur that was not planned on, well we have to live with it, right? We are not forced into an abortion, we discuss with our family and together we get through it (with the help of God)
For those pro choice, like me, we want the same thing. We are perfectly content to live the way we want, dispose of our own property as we see fit and not have the state turn us into slaves. And, we are perfectly happy to reach out to those who want to help us with private money, as long as the procedure is medically sound and clean.
Why did the court make a monstrosity of this? It was the perfect case to put liberty and the preservation of liberty first. The court did not do that. It muddied the water.
And I find it incomprehensible that people fear this decision will be overturned. The right to abortion cannot be overturned, as that is a natural / common law thing. If you overturn that, the court would essentially say: you only have rights when enumerated. Away with the 9, 10 and 14th Amendment.
What should be overturned is the notion that a state can proscribe on the basis of a imaginary interest in prenatal fetuses and thus may set time frames when a foetus is viable based on new technology and thereby depriving a citizen without warrant of reserved rights.
But you don't hear those SJW on that. They fear something that is not there. But overlook the actual insult to injury: All of a sudden it becomes women's rights. Bullshit. It is about a reserved right of all citizens. So much for inclusiveness of those SJW-types.