The right to privacy
- Thread starter astonmartin708
- Start date
Condoms are (or were?) protected by the right to privacy interpretation of the 14th amendment. What happens when the state says I can't have them anymore just like it told my wife she can't have medicinal pill?
then there is a problem with that, but right now condoms are abailable as well as birth control pills
Exactly. There is a problem with the fact that abortion is no longer protected in the same way that condoms, gay marriage, interracial marriage, etc... are protected. It's none of the state's damned business.
For a party that advocates 'small government' that's an awful lot of government intervention.
Was the abortion decision religious based?
Other religions bring suit in multiple states.
Other religions bring suit in multiple states.
Last edited:
It is also a religious based argument. Picking when life begins varies among cultures and religions. The claim that a fetus is separate from a woman and has a life of its own is strongly held in the US, but there is no science that says when that moment of separation occurs before birth. There is a lot that can be measured like heartbeats, but those measurements do not directly address whether or when the fetus is a part of a woman’s body or a separate individual.
Religion or more probably values. We have shared values in society that are not based on one particular religion and I would argue those shared values would be against aborting a full term child for an arbitrary or purely economic reason.
It’s a political argument. We need a federal law which sets the guidelines on abortion. Follow the model which is currently in most of Europe. Why don’t we….because the extremes on both sides would be outraged and each party is scared of losing votes. Plain and simple. Having states with outright bans and others advocating killing babies at birth is simply not sound law. Congress….change it and do it today. Actually, do it tomorrow. Let’s address our economic crisis today.
Just add it as an amendment to the constitution..get 2/3 of the states on board and voila...
No one is advocating killing babies. That’s a false equivalency.
Having no restrictions on when an abortion can be obtained and advertising the same is as close to advocating as one can get. Really not the point though. Neither side wants a reasonable federal abortion rights law. Which is why nothing has been presented. Much more valuable to play politics with the issue than solve it
Schumer's bill advocated abortion up to the time of birth.
Are you prepared to dive into a legal discussion as to whether there is a constitutional right to have an elective medical procedure found in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment ?
Assuming the issue is solely based on the right to privacy is a red herring and had zip to do with my post.
I believe that a restrained but evolving interpretation of the constitution to address the issues that our society currently deals with is somewhat valid when we've made the constitution so rigid in its inability to evolve. We've pigeonholed ourselves into a system that is fundamentally broken and promotes gridlock. The magnitude of the inertia necessary to be overcome for the codification of personal freedoms that the majority of our federal population broadly agree upon is outrageous.
I'm not just talking about abortion arguments in the judiciary either. It's the fact that despite broad consensus on marijuana legalization for years upon years, we haven't decriminalized at a federal level. The federal government and congress in particular responds to societal consensus at the speed of molasses because a social minority is given too much power over the majority via an archaic and flawed constitutional structure.
Last edited:
I’m fairly left leaning on this issue. I would like to see the law codified guaranteeing an abortion option up to a reasonable time. Similar to a lot of European countries. Should have been done years ago imo. The obvious problem is finding enough lawmakers in the middle which will agree to a 12-14 week restriction.
The federal government has punted marijuana laws to the states. Hopefully that changes soon.
Oligarchies are typically conservative especially when run by old white guys made rich via the status quo.
You believe those who wrote our constitution were considered “conservative” in the world of 1787?
so why does the gov care if choose to have health insurance, get shots, esrn too much, monitor my emails andinterner surfing, ...?
They were revolutionary but they were certainly part of a wealthy aristocracy. It was a Rebellion. Rebellions aren’t always strictly 20 year olds with their head in the clouds. Sometimes older and wealthier players put in their lot when they’re dissatisfied with the status quo.
So you believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights were “conservative” writings in the world of the late 1700s? I would argue just the opposite.
I don’t know how I would classify them. I would say they were evolutionary in their ability to address the problems that arose out of the articles of confederation. If you go read Madison’s comments in Federalist 20 on the Dutch republic you can see his that The fundamental ideas of governance by represented states wasn’t a fundamentally novel concept by that point. If Republicanism by that time was to the point that even the founding fathers were critiquing how to improve it from prior iterations, then I wouldn’t say it was inherently avant garde, though it was iterative.
It was avant garde in the fact that its founding documents told the government what it couldnt do and guaranteed the peoples supremacy over their limited govt...
Stop focusing on the governance aspect and instead look at the establishment of individual rights and liberties over federal authority. Very progressive thinking for the late 1700s.
NPR posted the audio of a woman having an abortion in a medical clinic. One of the weirder and more questionable things I’ve seen posted…and no I have no plans to listen to fetus’ bones being broken and then sucked out via a vacuum. I believe (or at least hope) that most people who believe in the right to have an abortion (like myself) have some morality issues with the actual act.
Would we like to make a distinction between early and late term abortions? Most Abortions that happen in this country are done via a pill and the woman can be at home.
Agreed. The one which was posted by NPR was obviously late term or a short term (pill) with complications. Gets back to why I support a federal law similar to most of Europe and why I believe extremist on both sides of this issue are wrong. Still not sure why NPR would post this.
