[BruceCroucshs]

Very US-centric for an abortion thread. There are a lot more countries beyond your borders. I mean, what is SCROTUM? And Roe vs. Wade - is that a tennis match?

[elalmhicabalp]

The only problem with abortion is that it is self-defeating - at the same time the ignorant god botherers multiply, the liberal intelligentsia is engaged in holding back their own numbers...

[Cxcvvfbgtr]

To start things off, and this is more about Roe v Wade - why did SCOTUS decide to use privacy as the foundational right for abortion? Aren't there much better starting points, using concepts whose presence in the Constitution is less nebulous? It's like asking why people use a tire iron to pry off lug nuts. If it gets the job done, what more do you need? Privacy gives them the answer they are looking for, which is why they use privacy, and not something else.

[Niiinioa]

I think privacy is pretty clearly misapplied. Abortion is a medical issue, and it should be up to the states. If South Dakota wants to ban them, fine. If New York wants to have them, fine.

The national government should only be involved when it is clear that the states lack the competency to deal with an issue themselves. Everything else is devolved to the state level.

[accotMask17]

A new abortion thread?!??

NNNOOOOOOOO!!!!!

[18holesin]

My feeling is that the notion of privacy was the only way in which SCOTUS could've argued for abortion in a nation packed with libertarian nutjobs. And probably it still is up to this day.

[Xibizopt]

The important question is really why you've got the courts handling this instead of Congress. I often think that my own country has given too much power to the legislative branch compared to the two other branches of gov't, and then the exact opposite is true for the United States. Politically speaking, I approve of a number of the progressive SCOTUS decisions, but in principle I find those questions shouldn't have been something for the courts to deal with in the first place.

In principle I agree with you, but have you seen the people seating in Congress?

[gamblingstats]

Ben could you elaborate? Do you think the right to privacy is simply being misapplied, or that it shouldn't exist at all? The tone and the attitude I get from Roe, and followed up by Casey is that when you have a nail, any hammer will do.

My concept of rights is that rights are not intended to be private. I believe in the right to life, to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Who among them would claim that one only has the right to liberty in private? All of these claims are very public assertions of freedom.

If one means by a freedom of privacy, a freedom of licentiousness, they already have that in liberty. The issue they have with liberty is that liberty is public. We do have liberty, and part of the exercise of liberty is that we are free to spend time away from other people to do as we see fit, provided that it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. However, it also encompasses rights to worship in public, to speak in public, freedom of the press, freedom of movement.

To say that there is a right to privacy, does not assume a right to commit crimes without witnesses, merely an assertion that we have a right to time to ourselves, which is already included in liberty.

Now, with respect to abortion, we would not say it was an assertion of privacy to drown your children in secret. We would consider this to be murder. Privacy is not a defense in this argument, so why is it a defense in abortion?

Abortions are not private. You go out in public to meet with a doctor inside a clinic with nurses and staff who meet you, and then they perform the abortion. Abortions are no more 'private' then the birth of a child. To argue that abortions cannot be regulated because they fall into the private sphere, is a bad argument, because clearly we do regulate and investigate all surgical clinics. The only assertion they can be provided is that doctor-patient confidentiality must remain, even as the abortions do not appear on the medical records of those who have them. This is a serious issue wrt to treatment, as there are many complications that arise from abortion, that only occur years down the line. When a doctor is missing this relevant bit of medical history, it can lead to improper and harmful diagnoses.

Arguing that abortion falls in the penumbras and emanations of privacy, is harmful to women, and a serious threat to their health. The argument should be made, that abortions pose a serious risk to women, and ought to be regulated in accordance to their risk.

Secondly, abortion is an elective procedure. It is never medically necessary. It is a means of convenience, in preservation of a lifestyle to which one has become accustomed. No woman will die if they do not get a timely abortion, other then the well known cases of an ectopic pregnancy. To assert that women have the right to an elective surgical procedure is to put a burden on doctors which they ought not to bear. Do we argue that women have the right to cosmetic surgery, even in the cases where it would drastically improve their quality of life? No. So why the special treatment for abortion?

Finally, we get back to liberty. If privacy falls under the heading of liberty, it comes with the caveat, that we are not justified in trampling the rights of another in the assertion of liberty. Now, it is not proper to assert this applies only to moral actors. Those who are moral actors have the duty to recognise the rights of those without these facilities. This includes children and some elderly. Whereas they are not considered responsible for their own actions, we do consider the moral actors having a duty to respect the individual rights and freedoms that these non-moral actors possess. It is also notable that they possess these rights not because of their former status, or their potential to become moral actors, they possess these rights even if they will never become moral actors, simply because they are people.

Now, we can extend this to the unborn. Yes, they are not moral actors. However, we do have a duty to the unborn to respect the rights which apply to them. This means taking care of their health, and for a pregnant woman to be careful about what she eats and drinks to ensure that her baby is healthy. We do not consider it a violation of privacy to insist that a woman who is pregnant avoid alcohol, yet we think it's perfectly fine to have an abortion? This makes no sense to me. If we have the moral obligation to care for the health and welfare of the unborn by not drinking, then we also have a responsibility to respect the right to life of the unborn by rejecting abortion.

[Calluffence]

Criminalizing abortion just drives it underground where it is practiced far more dangerously than it need be (apply same argument to prohibition generally here).

A rather shaky argument for two reasons:

A. If you believe the fetus is a person, which is pretty much the only reason to oppose abortion, the banning of abortion only terminates more human life if more than 50% of all women who would have had legal abortions have illegal ones and die as a result. Otherwise it's a net gain, albeit less tidy since half the mangled bodies aren't put in baggies and tossed in a biohazard bin at Planned Parenthood.

B. Prohibition was a failure not just because people continued to drink, but because their thwarting the law led to the development of vast organized crime empires. Does anyone believe there will be turf wars between underground abortionists named Larry the Forceps and Big Joe Saline?

[AntonioMQ]

A rather shaky argument for two reasons:

A. If you believe the fetus is a person, which is pretty much the only reason to oppose abortion, the banning of abortion only terminates more human life if more than 50% of all women who would have had legal abortions have illegal ones and die as a result. Otherwise it's a net gain, albeit less tidy since half the mangled bodies aren't put in baggies and tossed in a biohazard bin at Planned Parenthood.?

Premise is incorrect, in terms of what I meant. I believe the foetus is a person, but am arguing that less people is a net gain. What I'm saying there is that the abortion would occur either way, without prohibition safely, with prohibition more likely to be unsafe.

B. Prohibition was a failure not just because people continued to drink, but because their thwarting the law led to the development of vast organized crime empires. Does anyone believe there will be turf wars between underground abortionists named Larry the Forceps and Big Joe Saline?

Again, wrong premise. Prohibition drives the practice underground, causing the unsafe varieties of practice. Eg, illegal stills producing poisonous liquor. Whether prohibited or not, the practice still occurs.

[NerbuitW]

Wikipedia disagrees with you. According to them abortion up to the sixteenth week has been shown to be less risky for women than carrying the baby to term. We don't really know because statistics regarding abortion complications are not officially kept by an independent body, especially not long-term abortion complications.

Is abortion really not put on a woman's medical record? If so I gotta say that yeah it should be. No, it's not. Abortion clinics will not release their records to other physicians under any circumstances. Privacy perhaps for the clinic, but not of any sort that would benefit the woman.

To me the whole point of the privacy argument was that criminalization makes the state intrude into a private decision between the woman and her doctor which is protected by patient confidentiality. Again, privacy explicitly does not protect illegal actions. You cannot kill people in private, and expect that the crime will be treated differently. If abortion is determined to be illegal, then the privacy argument fades with the wash. This is why one cannot argue that privacy is the reason to make abortion legal, when the question is, "should abortion be legal or not". Privacy is irrelevant to this question.

As long as patient confidentiality remains protected (ie only medical staff see the records), I think the abortion should be on record. Does patient confidentiality mean information should be restricted to that specific doctor which the patient worked with? It's also available for recordkeeping. Say I'm a medical researcher and I want to know the incidence of breast cancer among women who have had an abortion at any point of their life. I cannot get those statistics. The release with the names is only available to the woman's physician, but the data without identifying information would also be available to researchers just as it is with any other medical procedure. Arguing that it would demonise the surgery is NOT an argument against it.

"Burden on doctors"? I'm also not sure that abortion is something women can go to the ER for. If you are saying that a woman has a right to an abortion, then that has a corresponding burden on the doctor to provide an abortion, or to refer to someone who will provide the abortion. It is a restriction on his conscience rights to decline to refer for an abortion. This is why if abortion is truly an elective procedure that is medically unnecessary, why it is wrong to force doctors to refer for abortion, and it is a limitation on his freedoms.

It's not like a woman on a plane who needs an abortion will make the plane land to get one (as opposed to having a heart attack for example). You also have to pay for abortion, so I really don't see what burden is being placed on doctors. That's not the way it works up here, and there are people working to change that in the US too, who argue that women have a right to an abortion, and shouldn't have to pay, using Roe's arguments. If it is a constitutional right, then it makes sense to me.

Is it illegal for a pregnant woman to drink? There's a difference between a public health campaign that says "Hey don't drink for two if you're eating for two" and making it a crime to provide expectant mothers with alcohol. There is a difference between FAS and abortion.

Also the SCOTUS has not judged fetuses to have the rights of real people under the US constitution. I'm not aware of any lesser courts that have, either. Doesn't matter. Rights exist regardless of whether SCOTUS declares on them or not. Slavery was wrong even when it was constitutionally legal.

BK does have one point in that privacy is not at all the most efficient path to go from the specifically defined rights to the abortion right. Which is why Casey used a different argument altogether.

[huedaanydrax]

We don't really know because statistics regarding abortion complications are not officially kept by an independent body, especially not long-term abortion complications.

No, it's not. Abortion clinics will not release their records to other physicians under any circumstances. Privacy perhaps for the clinic, but not of any sort that would benefit the woman.

That definitely needs to change. As far as protecting women in the event of abortion being recriminalized in the future, first of all, they can't be prosecuted under an ex post facto law, and secondly, when SCOTUS went with stare decisis they made it pretty clear that abortion isn't going anywhere.
Again, privacy explicitly does not protect illegal actions. You cannot kill people in private, and expect that the crime will be treated differently. If abortion is determined to be illegal, then the privacy argument fades with the wash. This is why one cannot argue that privacy is the reason to make abortion legal, when the question is, "should abortion be legal or not". Privacy is irrelevant to this question.
If you are saying that a woman has a right to an abortion, then that has a corresponding burden on the doctor to provide an abortion, or to refer to someone who will provide the abortion. It is a restriction on his conscience rights to decline to refer for an abortion. This is why if abortion is truly an elective procedure that is medically unnecessary, why it is wrong to force doctors to refer for abortion, and it is a limitation on his freedoms. Conscience rights are bullshit don't go there. People that become doctors by choice (all doctors) know what they're getting in to. Nobody joins the military and then says "oh hey I don't believe in fighting stop trampling my rights!"
That's not the way it works up here, and there are people working to change that in the US too, who argue that women have a right to an abortion, and shouldn't have to pay, using Roe's arguments. If it is a constitutional right, then it makes sense to me. I can't really believe that is happening unless under the general umbrella of socialized healthcare. If it's under those terms, I can understand, but otherwise that argument is just retarded. Women have the right to own Jaguars too but they can't demand them to be free.
There is a difference between FAS and abortion. Why did you bring it up?
Doesn't matter. Rights exist regardless of whether SCOTUS declares on them or not. Slavery was wrong even when it was constitutionally legal. Things can be wrong but still legal. What I'm saying is I don't see how abortion can be made illegal without a constitutional amendment.

[alenbarbaf]

Eh, what's to discuss? That humanity/"personhood" begins with conception is quite self-evident to me, and the idea that physical location or development have anything to do with human rights plainly silly. I haven't yet met a pro-choicer who can seem to understand that, and there's not much point in trying with the Supremes sitting on the issue.

It's liberty and self-determination.

Would you wish a raped woman to carry the result of that crime to birth?

There is no arguement on this as to argue with a pro-lifer is just the same as arguing with a creationist or flat-worlder.

[gkihueonhjh]

It's liberty and self-determination.

Would you wish a raped woman to carry the result of that crime to birth?

There is no arguement on this as to argue with a pro-lifer is just the same as arguing with a creationist or flat-worlder.

If you were the product of a rape, would your mother be justified in shooting you now? Maybe people are more than just illustrations of their parents' good or bad choices

IOW, I see your self-righteous smugness and raise you double

[Zdfjpbth]

Ben I have to go study the rest of the night but I feel out of anything this should be the easiest to get. Yes, there is a fundamental right to own property, and that includes one or many Jags. I thought this was pretty basic. If you disagree please elaborate. A lot.

[sterofthemasteool]

[juliannamed]

No, they are NOT. A certain percentage of women may choose to abort anyway, but many might very well be deterred by the illegality of it, thus sparing the life of the child. Unless more than fifty percent of all women who would have aborted legally abort illegally AND die as a consequence, which sounds unlikely to me, the practice is actually less dangerous underground.

This assumes that at least 50% of women who would otherwise have had abortions are deterred by the criminality of it, which I doubt. But I'm attacking the maths here, not the basic premise. You are probably correct in that if you are making a simple total.lives.saved equation then it is probably true that criminalising abortion is the way to go. However, the premise of my argument is that maybe it's better to lose a few lives, where those most directly concerned would rather have them lost.

It's safer for the mother, but if you only consider the mother's life worth saving the whole argument is meaningless from the get-go.

Well, that is an aspect of my argument, if an extreme version of it, so I guess to you my arguement is meaningless, hence your inability to effectively argue against it, chosing instead to make unrelated points disguised as an argument against mine.

And to ignore the whole organized-crime aspect of prohibition is a serious mistake. We didn't repeal prohibition because some people were dying from bootleg liquor. Even today, very few people talk about legalizing commonly-abused drugs out of concern that some hophead will shoot himself up with bad smack and die.

Have you not ever heard the "harm-minimization" argument against prohibition? I suspect you've been spending all of your time with authoritarian paternalists.

In both cases the main arguments for legalization revolve(d) partly around wasted resources on ineffectual enforcement, but of course mostly on the growth in violent crime. While brandishing a wire coat-hanger is a popular pro-choice argument of sorts, that was not really a major factor in prohibition, making comparisons faulty at best. You might as well say, "modern coal power plants, like the furnaces of Hitler's death camps, churn massive amounts of pollution into the atmosphere." Technically it's true, but it sounds monumentally silly to make such a comparison.

I don't know where you've had your head shoved for the last two hundred plus years, but the primary argument against prohibition of abortion has always been that it puts women having illegal abortions at an extremely high health risk.

The anti-organised crime argument against liquor prohibition is a major and valid one, but we are talking about abortion here.

[Coellacag]

:facepalm: Yes, I just said that "women are going to get mangled in back-alleys" is a common pro-choice argument. Reread the bloody post, FFS.

[GotActichwicy]

It's liberty and self-determination.

Would you wish a raped woman to carry the result of that crime to birth?

There is no arguement on this as to argue with a pro-lifer is just the same as arguing with a creationist or flat-worlder.

Given a choice, I'd rather kill the rapist than the fetus. But hey, I'm weird like that.

[ttoothh]

However, you're right if you mean that the federal government can't prohibit abortion. Congress does not have that authority. Congress probably has the power to ban abortion under the commerce clause, if the right to abortion did not exist.