Nitpicky? Hell yes.
Started by Buddy, May 03, 2022, 02:38:15 PM
Quote from: Recusant on May 27, 2022, 08:03:38 AMIn the theory of government behind the US Constitution, all power and rights are held by the people. The people elect representatives to administer those powers and rights. Thus the 9th Amendment. In this understanding, government does not and can not bestow "new rights." It protects and regulates rights, which are inherent to the people.
QuoteIt's been a couple of years since I read Amar's book on the US Constitution so I got it off the shelf and looked to see what it says about the right to privacy. Amar specifically includes the right to privacy in a discussion of the 14th Amendment, which gives the federal government the duty to protect rights from infringement by the states. He describes the US Supreme Court as having recognised that the right to privacy is one of the most important unenumerated rights which must be protected from infringement.
QuoteWhat do you view as reasonable legal arguments in support of the infringement of a woman's right to control her own life, specifically her capacity for reproduction? What compelling governmental interest is being advanced which clearly outweighs a woman's right to bodily autonomy?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PMIn Asmo's grey lump, wrath and dark clouds gather force.Luxembourg trembles.
Quote from: No one on May 28, 2022, 03:36:28 AMI solved the problem.All the ladies have to do is store guns in their bajingos and the government will leave them alone.You're welcome.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 30, 2022, 08:07:37 AMThe government can uphold a right - or not. Or actively prevent you from exercising it (Such as your right to possess and deploy nuclear weapons, for instance) It doesn't matter if the right is new or otherwise. It does matter if it infringes upon the rights of others.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 30, 2022, 08:07:37 AMAnd yet you don't have the right to end your own life, except by refusing treatment for a condition you did not cause yourself. Apparently that right stops at its ultimate expression. (Actually, long before that)
Quote from: Asmodean on May 30, 2022, 08:07:37 AMWhat I personally find compelling, is protecting third party rights, potentially including those of the unborn. A quick [EDIT] to the above, to avoid misinterpretation. I'm talking about third party rights where they are in conflict with first party rights, and not to the exclusion of such rights where possible. One line of argument might go something like this; a human foetus is alive. It is a member of the species h. sapiens sapiens. As such, it has the right not to be deprived of life without due process. (Or does it? Well, it has certain property rights, so why/why not the rights needed to exercise them?) That right then has to be weighed against the mother's right to kill it (Or, amputate it, if you prefer those semantics. Though if you do, notice that I said "kill," not "murder." Those are the semantics I prefer) How is that different from a pro-life argument, some may and do ask? Due process. I'm all for ending a life - or not letting it "start"- as long as certain criteria have been met.[End EDIT]That said, you may be indirectly misrepresenting my argument - I'm not advocating for a ban on abortion, nor for opening for state action against the mother. Civil action - yes, absolutely. Criminalizing the mother - no, with possible exceptions.I am, however, advocating for government meddling with service providers, forcing them into certain courses of action under certain circumstances. It could amount to the same (As it does with my example of suicide - it's not the state that puts your suicidal ass on a psych hold, technically, but it kind-of is) but it is a different argument. It's the case of regulating elective surgery. (Assuming that the abortion is not being performed for pressing medical reasons)
Quote from: Recusant on June 05, 2022, 06:31:14 AMAgreed, though the reasoning of the draft decision strongly relies on the idea that the US Constitution does not explicitly acknowledge a woman's right to bodily autonomy, asserting that the relatively recent acknowledgement of this right renders it invalid.
QuoteIn a number of jurisdictions you do indeed have the right to choose to end your own life (regulated more in some jurisdictions than others).
QuoteThere has been legal physician-assisted suicide in Oregon since 1997, for instance. As of now, eight other states and the District of Columbia have passed similar legislation. And of course it is legal in at least a couple of countries in Europe as well.
Quote from: the provided citationOregon's Death with Dignity Act allows terminally ill......4. diagnosed with a terminal illness (incurable and irreversible) that will lead to death within six months.
QuoteYour example of suicide is flawed, as I noted above, but I don't think that actually detracts from your argument.
QuoteBlastocysts and early term embryos do not have personal rights in my opinion. You may have a differing opinion. Where do you draw the line regarding what qualifies as a "member of the species h. sapiens sapiens."?
QuoteRegardless of the fact that not all of the genetic material comes from the woman, the cells involved are formed by her body. I would think that a libertarian view would support her right to self-determination regarding her body's functions. Who do you think has a right to initiate civil action against a woman for choosing abortion, and on what grounds?
Quote from: No one on June 07, 2022, 03:44:10 PMI do not have any lines in the play that is someone else's life.