Christian democratic

[metis]

To me, the most important question is whether I and others have the right to tell a pregnant woman what she must do with that which is inside her? Secondly, we also need to realize what the effects would be if all abortion is banned, and I'm old enough to remember reading and hearing about many of those "effects". To me, it's long always been a really tough call.

But we also need to be aware of the fact that a middle or upper-income woman can go to another state or country to have an abortion, so realistically it's only lower-income woman who would be faced with some rather nasty alternatives to end an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

"Each person has a right to do what they want with their bodies". My question is, why does this trump the baby's right to live?

Because the woman has the right to decide if she wants to have a baby or not

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

You aren't the first person to say this, but I don't believe it because it doesn't mesh with the facts. There are any number of policies that would reduce abortions that, if the Republicans supported them, could easily pass, but they apparently don't care to support them.

The Republican position on abortion is bizarre if we assume it's based on protecting "the unborn", but reconciles perfectly with it being about punishing women for having sex that they disapprove of.

Your argument seems to rely on the premise that to truly disagree with something you must support all measures against it, even measures that conflict with other beliefs of yours. This seems like a dubious assumption to me. Does it mean one has to approve of the measure to lynch anyone suspected of paedophilia to truly disagree with paedophilic acts?

The Republicans support some measures they think will lessen abortions.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Gun regulations would be considered a federal issue because they are directly protected by the constitution. A constitutionalist would use federal law to enforce the constitution, and leave (most of) the rest to the states.

I agree you could probably name an issue where there are double standards, but gun regulations aren't one of them and are consistent with the constitutionalist philosophy.

This depends if the constitutionalist in question believes in incorporation of the Bill of Rights or not. Except for certain provisions explicitly named in the Fourteenth Amendment, a very good argument can be made from an Originalist position that the Bill of Rights is not incorporated and that SCOTUS rulings in the last century that have incorporated it are illegitimate.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

If we granted equal rights to the woman and fetus, the woman would still have every right to end the pregnancy at any time, just as a bone marrow donor has the right to say "stop - no more" halfway through the course of bone marrow donations, even if the recipient will surely die as a result.

Bodily security is a right we even grant to corpses: if you say "no" to organ donation and then die, your organs will be buried with you regardless of how many lives your decision costs.

I've yet to hear an argument for why we should give pregnant women fewer rights than corpses, or why fetuses are magical beings that deserve far greater rights than normal humans, but you need to make at least one of those cases to deny a woman the right to an abortion based on the rights of the fetus.

Actually, we routinely violate bodily security or integrity. If you think about what you are saying this is obvious: the state would never be able to do anything to anyone against their will if it involved touching them or forcing them to go or stay anywhere.

Perhaps you are referring only to actual invasion inside someone's body, but I don't think the corpse analogy is useful. It is but a rhetorical point and not an argument. From the pro-life perspective, and even most moderate pro-choicers (it is an extreme pro-choice position not to care whether or not the terminated are fully human persons), the difference is clear: the mother is in a peculiar relationship to the child growing inside of her that creates obligations on the mother and her use of her body. Your rhetorical ploy about corpses would not doubt loose some force once it is made clear you are comparing the obligation of a mother to her child to the obligation not to interfere with corpses.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

This depends if the constitutionalist in question believes in incorporation of the Bill of Rights or not. Except for certain provisions explicitly named in the Fourteenth Amendment, a very good argument can be made from an Originalist position that the Bill of Rights is not incorporated and that SCOTUS rulings in the last century that have incorporated it are illegitimate.

Interesting, are there any constitutional lawyers/academics that hold this position?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Taxes get raised no matter what. I am for the woman's right to decided no matter what. If she choses to have an abortion it is no one else business.

The point is that abortion is a complex issue and one not easy to divide into those who want to force their ideas on people and those that don't. Where freedom lies in this issue comes down to complex and disputed matters about personhood and what we should take from that.

If you do wish to maximise individual autonomy, I don't the Democratic party or left-liberalism is your best home. I would say that either right-libertarianism, left-libertarianism, or libertarian socialism would be your best bet, depending upon where you fall on the question of economic rights and autonomy.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Interesting, are there any constitutional lawyers/academics that hold this position?

I think many conservatives have pointed out that the jurisprudence that incorporated, for example, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had little basis in the express meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and should not have occurred. Russell Kirk, for one, stated this.

 

[metis]

The Republicans support some measures they think will lessen abortions.

Yes, and that's typically a violation since most abortions are legal. Therefore, any attempt to restrict that right can be and should be declared unconstitutional.

 

[metis]

This depends if the constitutionalist in question believes in incorporation of the Bill of Rights or not. Except for certain provisions explicitly named in the Fourteenth Amendment, a very good argument can be made from an Originalist position that the Bill of Rights is not incorporated and that SCOTUS rulings in the last century that have incorporated it are illegitimate.

As odd as this sounds, the Constitution is what the SCOTUS says its-- Marbury v Madison. Therefore, even though a particular decision may be reversed by later SCOTUS decisions, no decision is intrinsically "illegitimate".

 

[metis]

If you do wish to maximise individual autonomy, I don't the Democratic party or left-liberalism is your best home. I would say that either right-libertarianism, left-libertarianism, or libertarian socialism would be your best bet, depending upon where you fall on the question of economic rights and autonomy.

I'm left-libertarian, and I entirely disagree with you. No party will likely fully reflect what most people may personally believe, but the Republican Party is much further away from my position than the Dems are. However, that's another discussion on another topic.

 

[metis]

I think many conservatives have pointed out that the jurisprudence that incorporated, for example, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had little basis in the express meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and should not have occurred. Russell Kirk, for one, stated this.

What specifically are you referring to here?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, we routinely violate bodily security or integrity. If you think about what you are saying this is obvious: the state would never be able to do anything to anyone against their will if it involved touching them or forcing them to go or stay anywhere.

Perhaps you are referring only to actual invasion inside someone's body, but I don't think the corpse analogy is useful. It is but a rhetorical point and not an argument.

I was referring to the use of one person's body - or its parts - by another person.

Interesting that you would draw an analogy between a pregnant woman seeking an abortion and a criminal being arrested, though.

From the pro-life perspective, and even most moderate pro-choicers (it is an extreme pro-choice position not to care whether or not the terminated are fully human persons), the difference is clear: the mother is in a peculiar relationship to the child growing inside of her that creates obligations on the mother and her use of her body.

Obligations that end once the child passes through the birth canal? We don't force a woman to let her children use her organs and tissues after the child is born. Even if the child will certainly die without it, we don't force a woman to give up so much as a pint of blood or breast milk without her consent. What do you see as different about the relationship between before birth that justifies a level of rights for fetuses well beyond the right we grant to actual children?

Your rhetorical ploy about corpses would not doubt loose some force once it is made clear you are comparing the obligation of a mother to her child to the obligation not to interfere with corpses.

Calling it a "ploy" doesn't make it invalid. The point stands.

The obligation of a mother to her child does not include the obligation to let the child use her body, or to risk her own life for her child, against her will.

 

[Mister Emu]

@9-10ths_Penguin

I apologize for the venom with which I responded to your supposition on the motives of conservatives.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I was referring to the use of one person's body - or its parts - by another person.

Interesting that you would draw an analogy between a pregnant woman seeking an abortion and a criminal being arrested, though.

You seem to not understand what analogies are. For the most part they are simply illustrative. There are inductive arguments from analogy, but most analogies are not actual arguments. You seem to mistake illustrative analogies for arguments from analogy. In this case my point was simply to point out we don't hold bodily autonomy as an absolute right, not to suggest their is a moral equivalence between all cases. And there are many more examples than just criminals.

Obligations that end once the child passes through the birth canal? We don't force a woman to let her children use her organs and tissues after the child is born. Even if the child will certainly die without it, we don't force a woman to give up so much as a pint of blood or breast milk without her consent. What do you see as different about the relationship between before birth that justifies a level of rights for fetuses well beyond the right we grant to actual children?

Perhaps we should. We would consider a parent who did not do these things for their child pretty low. I don't see this as a particularly compelling point, as it relies simply on current practice rather than a proper moral argument. And the current practice is a reaction to quite recent advances in medical science, a reaction that has much to do with the same individualist currents you champion. I have no compunction forcing a mother to give blood or milk to her baby, although it must be said that many others can do this for the baby. The issue of, say, kidney donation is somewhat different and more complex, as this involves substantial and artificial damage to the body of the mother.

Calling it a "ploy" doesn't make it invalid. The point stands.

The obligation of a mother to her child does not include the obligation to let the child use her body, or to risk her own life for her child, against her will.

What point? It is a piece of rhetoric. Are you suggesting it is an actual argument from analogy.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Yes, and that's typically a violation since most abortions are legal. Therefore, any attempt to restrict that right can be and should be declared unconstitutional.

It isn't really important not, but even the defenders of Roe v.Wade often admit it was a bad decision. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, for example, the majority decided not to overturn Roe v. Wade, but the majority opinion made it clear they felt it was bad jurisprudence. They simply suggested that it was precedent and that was that (although many of these judges would have had no compunction in overturning other precedent). Whether Roe should hold is controversial and depends upon both what you think of the original ruling and what you think about overturning bad rulings.

As odd as this sounds, the Constitution is what the SCOTUS says its-- Marbury v Madison. Therefore, even though a particular decision may be reversed by later SCOTUS decisions, no decision is intrinsically "illegitimate".

In Marbury, John Marshall explicitly derived the courts right of judicial review from the clear meaning and words of the constitution and the courts right to apply this as a legal entreprise. That seems quite the opposite to suggesting the constitution is simply what SCOTUS says it is. Their role comes from the fact that they only have to operate at the edges, extending and clarifying, rather than making the whole thing up. After all, if the constitution is so malleable as to be anything a judge can make it, why leave such power to judges? If the meaning of the constitution can be changed radically for political reasons, then surely a body of unelected judges is a strange organ to vest such power in. The legislature would seem a far better body. This was the traditional role of the Crown-in-parliament in Britain.

If the court is to rule on the constitution simply as it pleases, then they aren't really doing law any more and without the issue of constitutionality being a proper legal one, it seems even less necessary to vest the power to decide upon it in the Supreme Court.

I'm left-libertarian, and I entirely disagree with you. No party will likely fully reflect what most people may personally believe, but the Republican Party is much further away from my position than the Dems are. However, that's another discussion on another topic.

I didn't suggest the Republicans were a better party for a left-libertarian. They would be a better party for a right-libertarian. But neither Democrats nor Republicans are especially good for any sort of libertarian.

What specifically are you referring to here?

The decisions that have incorporated those parts of the Bill of Rights not explicitly incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, beginning in the 1920s.

 

[Druac]

Two things for certain...we are NOT "one Nation under God"...and we are DEFINITELY divisible.

 

[metis]

It isn't really important not, but even the defenders of Roe v.Wade often admit it was a bad decision...Whether Roe should hold is controversial and depends upon both what you think of the original ruling and what you think about overturning bad rulings.

Note that your two sentences above are pretty much contradictory. Whether the decision was a wise or not will always reflect differing opinions, but later abortion decisions by the SCOTUS have upheld Roe v Wade. These decisions weigh in on the idea that it is the right of the woman to make decisions that relate to her own body and that the state has no right to interfere with that. Since the fetus/baby has literally no constitutional rights, one cannot argue that it has legal status under the law.

In Marbury, John Marshall explicitly derived the courts right of judicial review from the clear meaning and words of the constitution and the courts right to apply this as a legal entreprise. That seems quite the opposite to suggesting the constitution is simply what SCOTUS says it is.

.
The phrase is sortofa tongue-in-cheek statement, but it is, generally speaking, true. The Constitution must be interpreted and parameters need to be set when it comes to implementation, and it's only the SCOTUS that logically has that final jurisdiction.

The decisions that have incorporated those parts of the Bill of Rights not explicitly incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, beginning in the 1920s.

There are parallels between the two, particularly if one compares the Establishment Clause/Free Exercise Clause to the Equal Protection Clause.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Note that your two sentences above are pretty much contradictory. Whether the decision was a wise or not will always reflect differing opinions, but later abortion decisions by the SCOTUS have upheld Roe v Wade. These decisions weigh in on the idea that it is the right of the woman to make decisions that relate to her own body and that the state has no right to interfere with that. Since the fetus/baby has literally no constitutional rights, one cannot argue that it has legal status under the law.

I'm not sure in what sense this shows my claims are contradictory. It is quite possible for other judges to build on false foundations. Roe itself built on Griswold. My point is simply that many candid supporters of Roe have admitted it was bad jurisprudence.

.

The phrase is sortofa tongue-in-cheek statement, but it is, generally speaking, true. The Constitution must be interpreted and parameters need to be set when it comes to implementation, and it's only the SCOTUS that logically has that final jurisdiction.

Indeed, and this is only meaningful in the context of textualism, originalism, or perhaps a strictly precedent, common law view of the US constitution. It doesn't make sense to give judges carte blanche authority to remake the constitution according to personal, ideological views. Judges seem a particularly strange body to vest this authority in, being unelected. If the constitution is to be constantly reinterpreted then the legislature would seem the best body to do it. This is doubly so, as such ideological interpretation would seem to split constitutional interpretation from law in a proper sense, and thus make it even stranger to vest the power in SCOTUS.

There are parallels between the two, particularly if one compares the Establishment Clause/Free Exercise Clause to the Equal Protection Clause.

You will have to explain yourself further.

 

[metis]

I'm not sure in what sense this shows my claims are contradictory. It is quite possible for other judges to build on false foundations. Roe itself built on Griswold. My point is simply that many candid supporters of Roe have admitted it was bad jurisprudence.

What difference does that really make? [rhetorical]

.

Indeed, and this is only meaningful in the context of textualism, originalism, or perhaps a strictly precedent, common law view of the US constitution. It doesn't make sense to give judges carte blanche authority to remake the constitution according to personal, ideological views. Judges seem a particularly strange body to vest this authority in, being unelected. If the constitution is to be constantly reinterpreted then the legislature would seem the best body to do it. This is doubly so, as such ideological interpretation would seem to split constitutional interpretation from law in a proper sense, and thus make it even stranger to vest the power in SCOTUS.

"Separation of Powers" and "Checks & Balances"-- that's what we use and that ain't likely to change. It's not always smooth, not always to our personal satisfaction, but that's what we do.