Abortion

Can SCOTUS Draw a New Line on Abortion?

The "viability" rule is arbitrary. So are the alternatives.

|

For nearly half a century, the Supreme Court has said the Constitution prohibits states from banning abortion before "viability," the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. Today Mississippi, defending its ban on abortions after 15 weeks of gestation, will urge the justices to abandon that longstanding rule, which it says never made much sense and cannot be constitutionally justified.

Mississippi has a point: The viability rule does not satisfactorily resolve the competing moral claims at the heart of the abortion debate. But the same could be said of the alternatives, including whatever policies state legislators would choose should the Court decide that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion after all.

Depending on your perspective, the Court either recognized or invented that right in 1973, when it overturned a Texas law that prohibited abortion except when it was deemed necessary to save the mother's life. Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, was initially inclined to draw a line at the end of the first trimester (about 13 weeks) but ultimately settled on "viability," which he said "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks)."

In the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court reaffirmed Roe's "central holding" that "viability marks the earliest point at which the State's interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on nontherapeutic abortions." It said that judgment "in no sense turns on whether viability occurs at approximately 28 weeks, as was usual at the time of Roe, at 23 to 24 weeks, as it sometimes does today, or at some moment even slightly earlier in pregnancy, as it may if fetal respiratory capacity can somehow be enhanced in the future."

But the technologically contingent definition of viability is not the only reason to question the soundness of this distinction. Roe posited that the ability to breathe, with or without artificial assistance, marks the point at which "the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life" becomes "compelling."

According to Roe, "this is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb." According to Casey, viability is when "there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb, so that the independent existence of the second life can in reason and all fairness be the object of state protection that now overrides the rights of the woman."

This rationale, Mississippi argues, "boils down to a circular assertion: when an unborn child can live outside the womb then the State's interest is compelling because the unborn child can live outside the womb." And if "independent existence" is the crucial consideration, that logic could be extended in ways that few would consider morally acceptable, since infants rely on the care of others long after birth, while disabled people may need such assistance indefinitely.

From a pro-choice perspective, the viability rule has the advantage of allowing nearly all abortions, less than 1 percent of which are performed at 21 weeks or later. But Mississippi's 15-week limit, which would prohibit about 5 percent of abortions in that state, is not much different on that score.

Why 15 weeks? The state legislature's choice of that limit seems no less arbitrary than the viability rule, especially since its findings suggested several other possibilities, including five to six weeks (when "an unborn human being's heart begins beating"), eight weeks (when a fetus "begins to move about in the womb"), nine weeks (when "all basic physiological functions are present"), and 10 weeks (when "vital organs begin to function").

There are many answers to the question of at what point on the continuum from conception to birth another person's right to life supersedes a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and none is completely satisfying. That will remain true no matter where the Court comes down on the government's authority to make that call.

© Copyright 2021 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: California's Ban on Magazines Holding More Than 10 Rounds Is Constitutional, 9th Circuit Decides

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

217 responses to “Can SCOTUS Draw a New Line on Abortion?

  1. Can "The People" STOP stuffing their noses into everyone else's personal life and mind their own business?

    Tyrant pride isn't alleviated by giving into it.

    1. When does ones personal life start? A fetus is a unique human. When do they gain personhood?

      1. Those are all good questions for EACH and EVERY Individual Person to make.

        1. Ahh so there's no objective measure? You are a human only if someone else feels like it? Never seen where that road ends

          1. Seriously paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

            Try now……………… Visit Here

          2. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.WQd Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site...

            For more info here.........VISIT HERE

          3. Nope, there is no objective measure of who or what gets legal rights. It's a decision we make as a community.

            You can decide to extend legal personhood rights to a fetus. You can decide to extend them to houseplants.

            But you can't do either without implicating the rights of walking, adult humans, so the honest thing to do would be for pro-lifers to acknowledge that.

            But one suspects that the entire point is not to save fetus lives but to return to a "good old days" where women had fewer rights.

            1. Thank you.

              1. #KarensForAbolishingWomensResponsibility

                #KarensForWhateverSuitsThemInTheMoment

                (#IncludingKillingBabies)

              2. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.NHr Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site...

                For more info here...........Earn-Opportunities

            2. #ToniesForTreatingBabiesLikeHouseplants

              #ToniesForMoralRelativism

              (#IAmNotAtAllAPsychopath)

        2. You do not see a problem with everyone deciding for themselves which humans are persons?

          For instance, what do you say to someone who disagrees that you are a person? Why should the law prevent them from harming you?

          1. If I need to be physically attached to them to survive, then certainly they should have a say in that matter.

            1. An infant is dependent on external care. Can they be killed over convenience?

              1. I'm not personally advocating infanticide here, but given how many cultures have historically and even currently see it as acceptable I think it's fair to say that a surprising percentage of humans would not consider infanticide as bad as the murder of a fully grown adult. You might say "well, those people are disgusting monsters and we should disregard their opinions" but that sort of thinking is how we got here in the first place.

                1. I'm not personally advocating murder here, but given how many cultures have historically and even currently see it as acceptable I think it's fair to say that a surprising percentage of humans would not consider murder as bad as genocide of a fully grown society. You might say, "Well, those people are disgusting monsters and we should disregard their opinions." but that sort of thinking is how we got here in the first place.

                  I'm not personally advocating genocide here, but given how many cultures have historically seen it as acceptable relative to exterminating the entire race...

                  1. I see the slippery slope argument you are trying to make, but you actually undermine yourself (unless of course you are a practicing Jainist at which point, congrats man, you do you I guess but the rest of the world isn't up for that). Allow me to illustrate: You have your own definition of what is right and wrong. That's great. And I mean that with no sarcasm. It's good to have moral viewpoints and it's good to try and convince others that your morality is the correct one and guide them towards being more moral people. If you believe that human personhood starts at conception (or at birth, or wherever) and you want to convince others that is the case, cool. But you aren't the only person on Earth, and your opinions aren't the only ones that people have. Many people have different opinions. Some of them are indeed quite out there. As you correctly identify, many of them believe that straight up genocide is morally righteous. For the sake of brevity we'll call them "evil people". Now, you can take two different actions in regards to the evil people. You can use force to stop them from doing evil, or you can try to convince them to stop choosing to do evil.

                    Now, obviously, with some extreme outliers like murderers and rapists and what not, the vast vast majority find their actions so intolerable and the people are so unable to be convinced that we, as society, use force to stop them. This is stuff like criminals. We put them in jail because they cannot be otherwise convinced to stop stealing stuff and killing people and so very few people are cool with that. Aside from those outliers though, using force on large quantities of people to make them stop doing the thing you don't like is generally considered "tyranny". I can't think of any genocides that occurred because the targets looked funny. It always happens because one group decides the other group is so evil and intolerable and resistant to convincing that the only solution is to kill them.

                    So you have a large number of people in your society who believe that something is fine and you believe it's just awful. You can either be the tyrant and enforce your vision of righteousness at the end of a sword (in which case, why are you here) or you can live alongside people who you disagree with and convince them to see things your way, and maybe when the Overton Window has shifted enough that the thing which you all hate is so far beyond the pale that pretty much everyone agrees, then you can ban it. But that's absolutely not in any way the case with abortion and, much less the definition of who counts as a person. Unfortunately, that's still very much a gray area for a lot of people. It's not clear, absolutely, what is and is not a person. SCOTUS has said that things which can survive outside the womb are humans. Some people disagree. I don't think a lot of people would say that two year olds aren't people, but there are certainly more of them than there are people who think twenty year olds aren't people, and like it or not you have to learn to live alongside those people.

                    1. I see the slippery slope argument you are trying to make, but you actually undermine yourself

                      You mistake my criticism of your self-centered teleological argument as a slippery slope argument.

                      But that's absolutely not in any way the case with abortion and, much less the definition of who counts as a person.

                      Says who? You? A person?

                    2. You took "Yo, infanticide is bad and all, but a lot of people don't agree that it is and you have to share air with those people" and tried to mock or criticize it by extending it by miming the structure of my post but replacing infanticide with murder, then genocide. That is literally the textbook slippery slope. But more than that, you proved my overall point by drawing the line for me, proving that there is, in fact, a line to the scale of awful things and that infanticide comes before murder which comes before genocide. None of the things on the scale are good, but each is more awful than the previous (at least according to your understanding, and mine!, and the understanding of most people) and presumably, at some point on that line each person will gradually stop deciding this or that is beyond the pale.

                      What is unacceptably bad is up to interpretation. My experience tells me that most people see infanticide as unacceptably bad, but not as bad as murder of a fully grown adult, which is again not as bad as genocide.

                      On the other hand the idea that personhood begins at conception is certainly not something people agree on. It's something a great many people do not agree with. I don't have statistics to back it up but if I saw a study that said the majority of Americans do not think personhood begins at conception I would not think it shocking.

                    3. 300k abortions occur in the US alone. His application of it to genocide isn't far off.

                    4. Why only human? Why not maple trees?

                      Why all humans? Why not only Black Lives Matter?

                    5. You took "Yo, infanticide is bad and all, but a lot of people don't agree that it is and you have to share air with those people" and tried to mock or criticize it by extending it by miming the structure of my post but replacing infanticide with murder, then genocide.

                      I took your relative moral argument and whimsically reassigned the moral denominator. If you perceive a trend to the denominator and believe that trend to be false, then maybe you shouldn't be making a relative argument.

                      My experience tells me that most people see infanticide as unacceptably bad, but not as bad as murder of a fully grown adult, which is again not as bad as genocide.

                      My experience tells me that anyone who's been alive for more than even 10 yrs. and hasn't heard an enormously popular "Fur the chillunz!" argument, is generally unaware of Lenore Skenazy (et. al.)'s work, or, especially in the last year, is completely unaware of school lockdowns and vaccine mandates specifically targeted at children, isn't a fully cognizant human or is pretending not to be for convenience.

                2. Some cultures also engage in gential mutilation of young girls, euthanasia of disabled people, and honor killings of women who disobey their husbands. In some cultures, grown men rape young boys.

                  Human chattle slavery was a part of American culture for a period.

                  Those practices are objectively morally repugnant. Are we supposed to base our own moral judgement off the fact that some cultures devalue life, so therefore it's okay for us to do it?

              2. I think there's a pretty good argument to be made that there is a difference between "this individual requires the care of *some* other human" and "this individual requires care from a *specific* other human".

                This distinction is even widely accepted, given that there's far more debate about the subject of aborting a fetus than there is about handing a neonate to an orphanage.

                1. Again, this continued acceptance and view, renders men not agents of reproduction but tools of female reproduction.

                2. There is no distinction. If a mother simply drops off an infant in the woods she is found guilty of manslaughter and negligence. There is zero difference. The requirement was on her to do something not simply decide walking to the adoption agency of infant drop area was inconvenient.

                  1. A medical clinic isn't the woods and it would be a wild miss-charge to call such event manslaughter (not that they don't do it all the time).

            2. The entire pro-choice argument completely ignores the fact that there was already a say in the matter. When you have choose to have sex, pregnancy is a risk you take. You can try and mitgate the risk with birth control, but the risk is never zero.

              In the vast majority of abortions, the individual had a series of choices and took a series of risks that lead to the pregnancy. So saying they should have a say in the matter is bullshit. They already did.

              1. "We can ban this because you have other choices" is an argument gun control advocates love as well, I don't find it any more convincing in this context

                Using your logic, we should ban birth control too, since your "say in the matter" already came when you chose to have sex

                1. Except you can take birth control before having sex.

                  Moreover, you falsely assume his stance is "No abortion ever." and not something more principally balanced like "There is a risk and you're free to take action to mitigate that risk even after the fact but, just like any other right, your exercising of it is not positive or otherwise completely unfettered."

                2. Regardless of the validity of the argument itself, the context is quite different. The Constitution doesn't say "the right of the people to have an abortion shall not be infringed".

                  1. Well; it kind of does ---
                    Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

                    Forcing a person to reproduce against their will sits very well as 'involuntary servitude'.

            3. In my opinion, you took on a duty of care when you engaged in an activity that a reasonable person would know has a high likelihood of pregnancy.

              *shrugs*

        3. Cool. Now you and anyone else who disagrees with me is not a person, and has no rights.

          On your knees, subhuman.

          1. Yeah, it's funny how women who openly weep about the mere prospect of turning humans into baby factories have zero qualms about turning men in to subhuman sperm donors.

            1. ...and the reason is of course; sperm is a *separate* item.

        4. So, if I decide you are not a person and so I am permitted to take your stuff and/or kill you? Keep you like livestock?

          1. If one is permanently attached INSIDE another; it's a pretty safe assumption that one's internal items can be 'live-stocked' by said person.

        5. What if somebody feels a racial group is not human? Should every individual person make those choices too?

        6. Would you extend that same thought to the doctor or health care provider or insurance company, or state, etc...

      2. A fetus gains personhood at birth.

        1. Traveling through a vagina is magic.

          1. The neonate in question is *unmistakably* a separate individual at that point.

            Which is why the "viability" position is not an unreasonable one for people who are conceivably inclined to accept abortion at all, because that also marks a point at which the entity in question is unmistakably an individual. Once outside the womb, anyone can see instantly that it is a distinct person.

            If it *can* be separated and survive, it's an individual person. It might even be reasonable to require a specific person to continue to keep that individual alive (by not getting an abortion) because they waited that long. Sort of like adverse possession.

            But before that point, it's definitely not nearly as clear that it's an individual. And may or may not have all of the same rights as an individual does.

            I'm not arguing for either side here. I'm not saying that's the right place to draw the line. But there is a difference to be seen.

            1. "Which is why the "viability" position is not an unreasonable one for people who are conceivably inclined to accept abortion at all, because that also marks a point at which the entity in question is unmistakably an individual. Once outside the womb, anyone can see instantly that it is a distinct person."

              The issue, of course, is that viability is becoming earlier and earlier and the law has not kept up with it.

            2. I can see the fetus is a unique individual at conception. Science is weird about this DNA stuff.

          2. Most legal definitions rely on 'magic'.

            There's nothing objective about 16, 18, or 21 years of age either. A line has to be drawn somewhere, where the line *was* drawn on abortion (first trimester) was satisfactory for a while.

            But this push to eliminate abortion is the natural counter to the already existing push to extend it to birth - or later.

        2. What passage through an incision or a vagina changes someone? Why at birth?

        3. A woman loses singular decision-making power to abort when she allows a penis into her vagina.

          If I sign a 9 month lease to park my car in my wife's garage and at 8 mos. and 29 days she pays someone to take an angle grinder to my car and vacuums out the pieces, she's guilty of criminal destruction of property and civil breach of contract.

          1. Why?

            1. Why?

              Because she's not the sole owner of the car. If she didn't want the car in the garage, she shouldn't have let the car in the garage. To sign a contract leasing the garage to someone and then claiming an unwritten term of the contract make her owner to the garage and everything in it is an unconscionable clause.

              1. Moreover, turn the stupidity of the "Why?" around. Mrs. Casual invests a 5% (or 1% or 0.1%) share in ownership of the car or the garage and I invest a 95% share. Suddenly, because I don't like what's happening in the garage, I declare myself sole owner and gut everything in the garage. Would you be asking "Why does Mrs. Casual think she has any claim to anything that takes place in the garage?"

                1. I mean over, and over. Regardless of the vagueries of life v. property. I start a distillery. I build the stills, grow the wheat, mine and extract fuel for the stills. Save, in exchange for a cut of the profits, Mrs. Casual provides a proprietary blend of yeast that she engineered. I, mid-distillation, change my mind and unilaterally destroy everything; distillate, cultures stills, wheat... everything. Are you really going to inflict un-personhood on Mrs. Casual by asking why she would think she has even the slightest interest in what should/shouldn't have been destroyed and/or what she is owed by such unilateral destruction?

                  1. Try this analogy:

                    Let's say I like extreme sports. I know I have a small chance of serious injury with each outing, but love the thrill.

                    Then one day on the mountain I break my legs. The doctors tell me I face 9 months of painful rehab and limited mobility. But they can administer a miracle cure in 24 hours. Would I be morally unencumbered if the cure requires the beating heart of a puppy?

                    1. Try this analogy:

                      Not an analogy. Not even the most fanatical Christians assert that anyone has ever gotten pregnant skiing down a hill by themselves.

                    2. Not even the most fanatical Christians assert that anyone has ever gotten pregnant skiing down a hill by themselves.

                      Even the ancient Greeks reserved such notions as inhuman or definitive of Godliness.

        4. What about C-sections? Also, late-term abortions frequently deliver the same fetus that premature births do, only one dies and the other is saved.
          Help me out. Roe vs Wade established a national right to abortion. If it is overturned, doesn't it return to a state by state issue? Are any blue states going to outlaw abortion? Most Americans live in blue states, so most will not notice any changes at all.

          1. Who said a C-section isn't birth?

            1. The vagina fairy that makes wooden boys real.

          2. From a practical standpoint this aspect isn't really discussed. If abortion is illegal in certain states, then get an abortion in another state. If you want to smoke weed, do so in a state where it's legal. If you want to start a foie gras factory, don't move to California.

            Whether or not these various laws are good or bad is certainly debatable, but from a practical standpoint, most people can adjust pretty well and deal with it because life isn't fair.

      3. According to the fascists, you never have a personal life; so shut up and take the experimental vaccine, put on a mask, and hide under the bed.

    2. It's not legal to beat your wife or starve your kids either, so you definitely can't kill your kids

      sorry to disappoint you

      1. Gaslighting defined, "kill your kids"...

        1. "Mind your own business" in reference to not wanting you to KILL YOUR DAMN CHILDREN

          1. Fetuses are not children.

            1. Yes they are. The DNA does not change due to passing through a vagina. They are unique individuals.

              1. Let me explain:
                Kids--outside your body. Not attached to nor dependent upon it for survival.
                Fetuses--inside your body. Attached to it. Dependent on it for survival.

                DNA has nothing to do with it.

                1. In the womb, a baby's needs are met automatically. A baby, once born is even more dependent upon others for survival, because they require direct actions to maintain their temperature, cleanliness, and to feed them. And we put parents in jail for neglecting to fulfill those duties. What's the significant difference here?

                2. Well your definition is quite stupid and arbitrary.

                  1. Arbitrary perhaps but not stupid. That's the practical definition that existed for almost all of human history.

                    1. No it wasn't. There were often add on charges for pregnant women murdered. The catholic church which has much supremacy for 1000 years in the western world was strictly against abortion.

                      Where do you get your facts?

                3. What about partial birth?

                  If the umbilical cord determines between a person and a non-person, are you saying that you can abort as long as the umbilical cord has not been severed?

                  1. Why aren't you all lobbying for surviving ejections instead of FORCING reproduction?????

                4. Newborns are independent?

                  1. physically; yes.

          2. The entirety of the murder happened on muh private property. Why does the state and society think they can involve themselves in this?!

          3. "Mind your own business" in reference to pretty much the one thing in all of creation that nobody can ever truly create by themselves. Trees, mountains, houses, asphalt, computer chips... I can go back to the source and reasonably conclude that nobody owns the source material. Reproductive material, OTOH, is definitively owned by *somebody* by the very same unwritten but inalienable tenets that grant me ownership of my own reproductive material.

    3. The question here is all about if the government is getting into people's private lives or if it's doing it's duty of protecting one person from violence by another.

      And let's not pretend that libertarians don't recognize a duty of care in certain situations already.

    4. Overturning Roe just means states can make their own laws in regards to it. What more could you ask for?

      1. Guaranteed personal privacy from the State powers?

        1. Are there no limits? Should murder not be a limit?

          1. Of one's own body items? No, No limit.
            There is nothing MORE personal than one's own body; which is the very foundation of 'murder' being framed as such a gasp-horrible idea right along with rape.

    5. Practically everything we discuss here is about somebody else's business. All of law is about other people's business.

      1. ...not their personal/family life business; or it shouldn't anyways.

  2. No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

    It's right there, always has been

    1. definition of person -- *Individual* human being.
      It's right there, always has been.

      1. DNA Fingerprinting Science proves that from conception the baby is a different human individual from its mother.

        Individuality doesn’t require immediate separation. Symbiosis is the term for different individuals living together even inside one another,

        During pregnancy, for nine months, two human individuals live in symbiosis. That’s life, get over it.

        1. Except that the relationship is not symbiosis. If you ever study parasitology you will see that the definition specifically excludes one or more like organisms living on another. This is an academic definition to avoid the fact that fetus in the mammalian phyla are parasitic.

          1. "If you'd studied, you know that the widely accepted technical definition is a lie to avoid my truth." - Moderation4ever

            1. Doesn't change the fact that a mammalian fetus has a parasitic relationship with its mother. It is not symbiotic.

              1. Doesn't change the fact that a mammalian fetus has a parasitic relationship with its mother. It is not symbiotic.

                Yes it does. By the definitions you assert to have learned and needing to be learned a parasite or symbiote cannot be of the same species or genus. Even in your metaphoric use, there's no definitive distinction between a pre-natal parasitic relationship and an adult parasitic relationship. And we don't generally allow women to go around chopping up deadbeat husbands or men to go around aborting aged trophy wives.

          2. Pregnancy results in benefits to the woman making the relationship symbiotic.

            Longer life, reduced risk of cancer, heightened senses, reduced menstrual discomfort etc.

            http://www.todaysparent.com/pregnancy/pregnancy-perks-the-health-benefits-for-mom/

        2. While true, that argument is insufficient to define "personhood". Personhood is a legal concept that is at best only loosely connected to the scientific definitions of individuality.

          1. Prove. Your claim.

            Every word we use is defined in dictionaries, not courts.

            The legal system has no business defining words.

            It’s job is only to apply the meanings we have to achieve Justice.

      2. A fetus, even if only a thing, isn't created or owned by just one person and is recognized. Since before The Constitution, always has been.

        1. By your definition, personhood exist at conception. You would also have to conclude a number of birth control techniques are also in violation of the constitution, as these act post conceptually.

          1. By your definition, personhood exist at conception.

            Nope. My definition specifically excluded personhood and arguably controverts personhood; even if the baby is only a thing, it is not created or owned by one person.

            Further evidence that even if you attended a parasitology class, you failed. Learn to read.

  3. I might be more likely to support abortion if the people calling for it weren't such pieces of crap.

    Guy I spoke to the other day in the real world ---- loser, no job, lives at home, hooks up with random girls at clubs ---- said he was upset after a conversation he had with a girl after a one night stand.

    Him: So... what would happen if I got you pregnant?
    Her: ....well I wouldn't expect you to take an active role

    Him (to me): ".... I was hoping she'd say she'd get an Abortion"

    --------

    That right there is why I've gotten so much more pro-life over the years. People who want to kill their kids for their own convenience are scum. There's no working around that. You literally believe in child sacrifices for harvest.

    The vast, vast number of abortions are not for health or rape or invest or anything like that. It's all for convenience. Killing your own damn kid for your own convenience. How do you live with yourself?

    Take some fucking personal responsibility for your own actions. It is completely immoral to sacrifice your own child for your convenience and because you refuse to take responsibility.

    1. And if having a child is so inconvenient, just don't have sex with every warm body that stumbles within reach.

      1. Proggie logic at its best.

        It's *your* fault the government is intruding in your personal life. You must abandon all individual autonomy and submit to the state, then they'll get off your back!

        1. No, it's *your* fault that a pregnancy resulted from your voluntary sexual activity. Why are you skipping that part?

        2. It's *your* fault the government is intruding in your personal life.

          When you seek out a certified medical professional, it's no longer your personal life. When you claim that your vagina gets special protection under unwritten emanations in The Constitution, special protection that no other genitals enjoy, it's no longer your personal life.

          1. "When you seek out a certified medical professional, it's no longer your personal life"

            I really shouldn't be surprised anymore to see such blatantly anti-liberty ideology espoused around here, but somehow I am

            1. I really shouldn't be surprised anymore to see such blatantly anti-liberty ideology espoused around here, but somehow I am

              You know how a Rorschach test works, right? Just because you think your abstraction of reality is libertarian, doesn't mean other people's factual statements (whether they agree with the facts or not), are inherently anti-libertarian.

              1. whether they agree with the facts or not

                That is, whether they ideologically agree that the facts *should* be true or not...

    2. What an astonishingly stupid way to establish your own opinions.

      If the guy you talked to the other day happened to be likeable you'd be more pro-choice? lmao

      1. What an astonishingly stupid way to establish your own opinions.

        If the guy you talked to the other day happened to be likeable

        Welcome to the last 20,000 yrs. of human civilization. If you don't like it, then, by your own precepts, GTFO.

    3. *a-hem* Both sides.

      Mrs. Casual, in college, was looking to join one of several sororities or professional societies with a group of friends. Various friends went off and joined other sororities. Mrs. Casual, who was studying for a career in women's reproductive health, took note when one friend mentioned that STDs seemed to go around her sorority like the flu. Mrs. Casual, recognizing the obvious, asked about birth control. The reply was "Whaddya mean?"

      Observing my own "both sides" "rule": The issue isn't sororities or fraternities, or morally irresponsible men or women, it's the abortion or, more directly, the complete lack of any and all forsight and personal responsibility.

      I've always been fairly, in a knee-jerk reactionary sense, oppositional to lots of social conservative dogma, especially when it's interventionalist. Still, in a very objective sense, I have a hard time reconciling someone's inability to recognize obvious consequences 48 hrs., 8 weeks, 20 weeks, and 36 weeks down the road as a value proposition for the general state of human consciousness. That's not to say they should be punished for such lack of foresight, but that the not alleviating the consequences isn't an intervention and no one is owed an exemption from the consequences of their actions.

    4. Hey, the modern ethic, especially in progressive thinking, is that responsibility is unfair, and thus bad. The purpose of civilization should therefore focus on eliminating responsibility. (Unless you can be blamed for someone else's problems, and then look out.)

    5. Even worse is forcing someone else pay taxes for your promiscuity.

  4. But the same could be said of the alternatives, including whatever policies state legislators would choose should the Court decide that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion after all.

    Almost like this is something that was decided the same way as before Roe.

    Speaking as a pro-lifer, I accept that a total repeal of Roe would inevitably enable blue states to allow abortion up to 2-year-olds. I also accept that those states are countries unto themselves, so I won't give them my time.

  5. "There are many answers to the question of at what point on the continuum from conception to birth another person's right to life supersedes a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and none is completely satisfying."

    Because abortion is putting aside a fundamental assertion of liberal ethics, that human beings are endowed with inalienable rights without exception, in favor of a utilitarian argument, that human rights can be put aside in favor of convenience. The utilitarian consideration is what creates the arbitrary nature of "viability", as it tries to open a space where a human life is not a person.

  6. A more libertarian article would criticize a judicial system that re-writes the Constitution at its pleasure.

  7. It strikes an umbilical chord.

  8. To answer the question, yes, the supremes can do anything they damn well please.
    They can invent "the right to choose", so they can un-invent it.
    They can define a penalty as a tax. They can determine that "shall not be infringed" means "well, it can be infringed a little bit (or a lot)" They can determine that the cops can take anything you own just for the hell of it. They can determine that inanimate objects can be sued in court. Any thing they want to do, they can do.
    Think about that.

    1. That's absolutely right. They can literally make up anything they want to (gay marriage anyone?) whether it's a good idea or not, and say "look, if you layer 200 years of interpretations and convoluted thinking, we see it in the Constitution. It's right there! Squint harder."

      As to this case, how about this as a line for SCOTUS to draw? None of our (federal) business. State law-making should address this issue.

    2. Good point the original right was invented by SCOTUS in Roe v Wade. But I don't think the laws in question violate Roe v Wade. The violate the looney liberal desire to kill babies up to and maybe even after the moment of birth.

      1. I think gay marriage has a stronger foundation because it relies on 14A that all are treated equal under the law. Since we have marriage laws you can't discriminate. Now I also believe that marriage is no ones business including the government but that another subject.

        1. Fair enough but then why is polygamy still outlawed?

          1. It shouldn't be IMO.

  9. Weird thing about Roe v Wade is that it explicitly allows states to apply restrictions. But nobody talks about this. Abortion is not illegal it is restricted in some states.

  10. I am struck by the number of commentor that conclude a fetus has the same rights as a person. Now if you assume this view then about those rights, would you not also conclude that personhood exist at conception. It then follows that a number of birth control techniques are also in violation of the constitution, as these act post conceptually.

    The fact is the only pure definition is that life and person begin at conception, everything else is a construction. I would suggest the best way to handle abortion is to treat it as what it is, a medical issue. Allow for a woman and her doctor to make the decisions. Avoid legal constructions based on stage of the pregnancy.

    1. Mod makes a lot of sense. If I were a state legislator, or a state citizen voting on a referendum, I might agree with your position. But the Constitution and SCOTUS have fuck-all to do with it. "Not our circus, not our monkey" is a lot more accurate than penumbras and emanations.

    2. Why, precisely, is murder OK in some circumstances?

      1. Presupposes the answer.

        1. If you are accepting the premise that personhood begins at conception, then the unborn has a moral claim to legal protection to threats against its life. "Murder" is a reasonable answer given the premises.

      2. ...because the "murder" claim is bogus to begin with.
        My child wasn't born because I had to work and couldn't have sex; so my boss murdered my child! <--- Is the same bogus story.

        1. No, it is not the same thing.

          The living being exists. Seperate DNA and all. You can make yourself feel better saying "Well, it's really not a life", but it is not a distinction one can honestly make.

          Hypotheticals and reality aren't actually synonymous.

          1. And transplanted organs are a separate life all on their own too???
            Your reality has massive holes in it.

            A transplanted organ has separate DNA and stops working when removed from the 'system' (a person). A fetus does EXACTLY the same thing guaranteed before 28-weeks and often well into 2nd trimesters.

            1. Organs are not individual humans, they are parts of a human. that is not a hole, it is an ignorant attempt to make one.

              1. lol... Fetuses aren't *individual* humans either.
                Which is 100% the problem/lie with Pro-Life's position.

      3. Because no one has the right to feed off your body or tear your vagina apart against your will. Their need of your body for their survival does not give them a claim to it. Also, a non-person cannot be "murdered".

        1. The woman cedes the right to be free of the ravenous vagina-tearer inside of her by engaging in the procreative act that created that person in the first place. If her will is to avoid the presence of that person inside her, it is very simple to do. Adult decisions come with real consequences, and it is wrong for the involuntary party to the whole arrangement to bear them.

          1. Puritans Law, "Those people who are doing x,y,z are committing sins and therefore must be stripped of their own body rights."

            ...And, "It is wrong for your own pecker (involuntary party) to get abused by you.

            1. Extending the NAP to a separate, distinguishable human lifeform is not puritanical. The creation of life is not wrong, but extinguishing it without consent sure is. I take issue not with the humping that makes a new person, but rather the termination of their life without their input.

              1. Funny; didn't know the debate had anything to do with *separate* human lifeforms.

                1. Don't be obtuse. The debate is about the legal personhood of a fetus, distinguished from that of its parents. I'm in the camp that thinks a fertilized egg implanted in a uterus constitutes new life that should be entitled to continue its development unimpeded. I don't think there is a grace period after that point where it's morally okay to "undo" the creation of the life because I see that as equivalent to killing. Are you clear now on what the debate is about?

                2. And before you snap back about day-after pills, I acknowledge that they would fall outside of my definition of acceptable birth control, next to the coat hangers. There are other methods, and just because they all require some forethought does not make them insufficient to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Birth control is possible without creating and then ending life.

                  1. ....And the problem spot on this debate isn't what 'camp' you're in or what is 'morally okay' (*all* religious in nature); the problem is using Gov-Guns to FORCE your 'camp' ideals onto another against their own will when it's NONE of your business what-so-ever.

        2. Women have the right to demand men pay money for the upkeep of a child or 18 years, whether the man wants it or not. The woman has equal say in the child's existence as the man.

          Don't want a child "tearing" your vagina apart? Don't fuck around with a bunch of randos. It's not like birth control is all that difficult to get.

          1. Women have the right to demand pay....
            Well that's a whole other subject of rotten policy........
            Stacking sh*t on top of a sh*t foundation doesn't make it any less sh*tty.

    3. As usual, you're making a strawman. Overturning Roe v. Wade isn't saying abortion or anything else is "unconstitutional." It's saying the Constitution imposes no (particular) restrictions on State regulation of abortion, including the completely made up, pre-viability, substantive due process right to privacy emanation penumbra right to abortion.

      Between your misrepresentations you do raise the issue: the Constitution also imposes no particular restrictions on state regulation of contraception.

      FYI the Constitution also imposes no particular restrictions on murder, as long as it's not by a State. We get by.

  11. If the conservative Catholic SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade, Republicans could very well snatch defeat from the jaws of a victory in next year's election (and 2024 as well), as many Republican and Independent women (and rationale men) would vote Democrat in state and federal elections (to preserve women's legal right to abortion services)

    The ultimate solution is for US Congress to enact a federal statute that protects all American women's right to abortion in the first 17-22 weeks of gestation, and in cases of incest, rape, and health of the mother.

    Like other conservative prohibitionists (e.g. of alcohol, marijuana, hallucinogens, opioids, other drugs, gambling, pornography),
    abortion prohibitionists insist upon imposing their theological views of morality on everybody else, have zero respect for autonomy of people (pregnant women in the case of abortion)
    whose freedoms they want to take away, and don't care about the disastrous ramifications their bans create.

    Similarly, Progressive Socialist prohibitionists (i.e. those who campaign to ban guns, tobacco, GMO, lead, coal, oil, natural gas, etc.) also insist upon imposing their socialist views of morality on everybody else, with zero zero respect for the autonomy of people whose freedoms they want to take away, and with little or no concern about the disastrous ramifications their progressive socialist bans create.

    1. The key challenge for 7 of the 9 Justices on SCOTUS (Gorsuch list Anglican/Catholic as his religion) is to prevent their Catholic theology and doctrinaire from interfering with their decision making.

      1. It's really not just a Catholic theology

        1. While fundamentalist protestants also want to ban abortion, 7 of the 9 Justices on SCOTUS are Catholic, and Catholics have imposed abortion bans in dozens of countries during the past several centuries).

          1. Well thou shall not murder is a commandment and a law so good for them.

    2. "enact a federal statute" under what Constitutional authority?

      1. As explained in the bill passed by the US House in September at
        https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3755/BILLS-117hr3755ih.pdf

        This is one of several sound bills the Democrat House has passed this year.

        In realty, SCOTUS is NOT going to overturn an abortion rights laws enacted by US Congress.

        The challenge is getting 60 votes in the US Senate, which would likely require obtaining at least a dozen GOP votes (as several Catholic Democrat Senators will vote no).

        1. lol I read the first few pages and it's full of woke gobbledy-gook. Not the least of which, being anti-abortion is motivated by misogyny.

          "Access to equitable reproductive health care, including abortion services, has always been deficient in the United States for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) and their families. The legacy of restrictions on reproductive health, rights, and justice is not a dated vestige of a dark history. Presently, the harms of abortion-specific restrictions fall especially heavily on people with low incomes, BIPOC, immigrants, young people, people with disabilities, and those living in rural and other medically underserved areas."

          "The terms ‘‘woman’’ and ‘‘women’’ are used in this bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people targeted and affected by restrictions on abortion services, and to address squarely the targeted restrictions on abortion, which are rooted in misogyny. However, access to abortion services is critical to the health of every person capable of becoming pregnant. This Act is intended to protect all people with the capacity for pregnancy—cisgender women, transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender, and others—who are unjustly harmed by restrictions on abortion services."

        2. I almost regret telling you this again, but I'd love for the Dems to be stupid enough to listen to you. We need a test case to get the Commerce Clause back into any kind of limitation, and an obviously unconstitutional federal abortion rights law is just the ticket to get the normally squishy-on-liberty social conservative jurists on board. We'd kill Wickard v. Filburn thanks to your stupidity.

          Oh, and exterminating your young will still not be a constitutional right.

  12. My grandson was premature , 7 months. He was a little small at birth but was never in NICU and is fine now. Saying that the mother has the right to kill this baby is crazy and immoral. Its not a "right".
    The mother can always give up the baby for adoption. Same as if it was carried full term or if after birth the mother decides she can't do it.

    There are waiting lists for adoptions

    1. "There are waiting lists for adoptions"

      Except that black women have >60% of abortions in the US, even though blacks comprise just 13% of the population.

      Meanwhile, most white couples who want to adopt only want to adopt a white baby (whose mother wasn't addicted to drugs).

      1. Yea doesn't change anything.

        1. Please explain just who is going to adopt the several million additional unwanted black children (that you falsely claimed there are waiting list for).

          1. So you're point is they would be better off dead? Yea a non-starter for me that's why it doesn't change my opinion . Maybe close the southern border

      2. "Except that black women have >60% of abortions in the US, even though blacks comprise just 13% of the population."

        You'd almost think the largest abortion provider, which I am required to fund, was founded by somebody who specifically sought to limit black births...

    2. I was 3 months premature. According to the left it would have been totally fine to kill me 2 seconds before passing through the magical birth canal.

    3. UR F.O.S...... 8-weeks? B.S.

      1. Oh you mean 7-months carry... so; week 34. Okay; never-mind.

  13. >>The "viability" rule is arbitrary. So are the alternatives.

    letting everyone live works.

    1. Can any of the many abortion prohibitionists who post here explain just how they would implement/enforce the abortion prohibitions they insist upon?

      Seems like virtually all abortion prohibitionists (just like alcohol prohibitionists a hundred years ago) deluded themselves (and society) into absurdly believing that alcohol prohibition would magically make alcohol disappear (and make the US heavenly).

      1. Same thing with marijuana and other War on Drugs prohibitionists, prostitution prohibitionists, pornography prohibitionists, gambling prohibitionists, gun prohibitionists, carbon prohibitionists, etc.

        Prohibitionists have been and are the biggest threat to freedom and liberty.

        1. >>Prohibitionists have been and are the biggest threat to freedom and liberty.

          I come from bootleggers we're good. And I'd say never being given a shot at freedom and liberty because your mom's lazy is worse.

        2. ...well, abortionists are pretty terrible for the freedom and liberty of children....

          1. Well not really; all they did was set the children free of their mother... Ya; Pro-Life's argument have really gotten that stupid.

  14. Which "government"? Drawing a viability line sounds like a difficult mix of factual and value judgments regarding which reasonable people can disagree. If only our constitutional order provided a framework for dealing with such difficult questions while getting on with other business! The Journal hit the nail on the head on this one: https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-abortion-crossroads-at-the-supreme-court-dobbs-jackson-mississippi-john-roberts-11638311038?mod=opinion_lead_pos1 Trying to solve this question at the federal level has been extremely destructive to our national politics.

  15. Personally I favor more localized control versus larger federal control. If states rights were more important that federal laws this would be a step in the right direction. If counties separated to become independent from the state, that would be even better.

    The question of abortion is difficult and should not be determined at the federal level and probably not at the state level either. While there does need to be some sort of "morality" or "ethics" that a voluntary group of people decide to adhere to. The more local and less all encompassing the better.

    Common sense is that abortion is typically rooted in the lack of personal responsibility. Wanting a over arching law that allows abortion for any reason at any time is to alleviated a sense of guilt.

    Of course there are exceptions as there always are. Reasonable people will disagree with each other over what should and what should not be allowed. This is a good argument for local versus one site fits all approach.

  16. I do not see the government compelling the birth of thousands of additional unwanted children as a positive for society. First trimester abortions should be legal. Late term abortions should be illegal aside from extreme circumstances. There's that nice squishy middle i won't pretend to have the answer to so using viability as the deciding point is fine with me.

    The "morning after pill is murder!" and "A woman should be able to kill her full term baby on the delivery table if she wants" crowds need to STFU.

    1. ^Well Said.... One has to ask; which 'side' is trying to use Gov-Guns to FORCE their pre-consieved notions onto others in this issue?

    2. "Late term abortions should be illegal aside from extreme circumstances."

      Can you list what these circumstances would be? Specifics, please.

      Note, pro lifers are OK with abortion if the child or mother are going to die. It's the whole "Well, if it impacts the mother's MENTAL health" bullshit that has caused problems.

    3. Thank you for being a voice of reason.

    4. And poor third world kids are a positive for society?

    5. The moral vacuousness of utilitarianism on display.

  17. Take responsibility for your actions. Everything the left advocates is pushing responsibility for your decisions on other people and not taking any yourself.

    College - Party hard and get a useless degree ----> Have someone who studied hard and got a good career pay for your student loans!

    Housing - Buy a house you can afford and budget responsibly --> Pay for your loser's mortgage

    SALT - Vote for laws to increase taxes locally --> Have other localities pay them

    Abortion - Don't use birth control and get someone pregnant --> Kill the (innocent) baby

    and on, and on....

    1. Abortion means far less babies are getting killed, as opposed to the past, when killing an actual child after birth was far more common due to lack of birth control AND of accessible safe abortions.

      1. Or you could take responsibility for your own actions, and *not* kill your own child for your convenience.

    2. Using Gov-Guns to block the "Taking responsibility for your actions." just doesn't quite fit the narrative you're trying to paint.

      1. There is a difference between something being illegal and something you should not do. Just because I want drugs decriminalized does not mean I would ever do them.

        It doesn't matter if abortion is legal. You should not personally do it.

        If you kill your own kid for your convenience and refuse to take responsibility for your own actions, you are the worst person.

        1. It doesn't matter if abortion is legal. --- That is the topic at hand.

          And those personal judgements being enforced by the threats of Gov-Guns would be???

          1. I would think if there is any justification of a government gun, it would be to protect an innocent human life from being murdered.

            I think deep down that you know it's a human life, you'd just prefer it wasn't. It's a mental trick people use to convince themselves that no, I'm not actually a bad person for killing my kid for my own convenience. See... it's not really a kid! Problem solved.

          2. Let me rephrase that.

            Yes - If you try to murder your child, then yes, the government should stop you, with guns.

            It makes no difference if the child has been born, or is 2 seconds away from passing through the magical birth canal. I was 3 months premature, and the official position of the democratic party is that those babies can be killed for any reason up to point of birth.

            It is insane for you you look at an image of a 6 or 7 or 8 month old fetus and think killing it for your convenience is acceptable.

            1. I don't need to play "mental tricks" --- you do.

              Because when you show up with your 'gun' to protect that "child murder" and shoot mommy; by the facts of nature you're killing the "baby" too....

              And it works that way because Pro-Life has gaslighted terms every which way and flipped basic reality on it's head all in a pursuit to stick Gov-Guns into other people's personal/family life's.

    3. Fine, so once we tax all of the wealth away from the children of rich people, who did nothing to earn that bounty, we can pay for the basic needs that people need in order to be empowered to take personal responsibility.

      1. Millionaire's don't get abortions? So it's just eugenics against poor people you support? ("Always Have")

        Nope. People get abortions because they don't want to take responsibility or change their lifestyle. Has very little to do with money.

        When Toobin offers a mistress money to have an abortion so the wife doesn't find out.... (same with that one republican congressman) .... yeah you are officially the scum of the earth. Kill this innocent child to cover up my actions!

        Yes. That should be illegal. And those people should be locked up, forever

        1. Libertarian that I am, I believe in minimizing the role of the state in policing people's personal behavior. The invention of birth control (in all its forms) empowered women to participate in society as much as men (meaning as much as they freely choose), and that's one of the greatest innovations in human history.

          If you want to return women to the status of birthing chattel, you should say that clearly in your political ads.

          1. "Libertarian that I am, I believe in minimizing the role of the state in policing people's personal behavior."

            Now do vaccine mandates.

            1. They're a routine aspect of any modern civilized society. Without them, we'd be dying of preventable pandemics so often we'd be doing little else with our time.

              Life is about tough choices, but that's not even one of them.

              1. No true Snotsman…

    4. "College - Party hard and get a useless degree ----> Have someone who studied hard and got a good career pay for your student loans!"

      Hell, punish people who did not go to college and, thus, get "on average" less money and force them to give people who, "on average" make MORE money even more of their money.

      A more regressive policy could not be conceived of.

  18. Where you draw the line between an abortable fetus and a person with rights is arbitrary. Most living, breathing adults didn't have rights as we know them for most of history. It's all a social construct.

    While it can seem like a progressive idea to extend rights to fetuses, as we have extended them to women, minorities, children, and even animals, the pro-lifers refuse to acknowledge the negation of the rights of adults that their program entails.

    It's simply obvious that legal abortion is a necessary part of a modern free society. It's a shame we have to be a sex-divided gestating species, but that's the circumstance we're working with. And if you think women should have an equal right to participate in their society, not to mention an equal right to not be forced to undergo complex and dangerous medical procedures against their will, there is no alternative.

    And it can be accomplished in one easy step: stop insisting that a fetus is a person. It's an arbitrary choice, after all.

    1. "It's a shame we have to be a sex-divided gestating species, but that's the circumstance we're working with."

      You reactionary pig. There is no such thing as men and women. Off to the gulag with you.

      1. Innies and outies?

    2. A fetus is a human life, and not just a clump of cells, no matter how many people think otherwise. I was 3 months premature, and these people advocate being able to kill 6-9 month old fetuses.

      Deep down you and they know it's a person, they just don't want it to be.

      And yes, History is replete with examples of categories of people not being actual people with rights. Slaves arn't people, Jew's arn't people, the Kulak's arn't people...

      Pretending that this is not a person and can be killed for your convenience is a lie you tell yourself so you don't feel bad about your own actions or the consequences of the policy you support. See, it's not *really a person*... I did nothing wrong!

      https://images.ctfassets.net/9wtva4vhlgxb/3xAaOEM9P9BXN6n7Wxqdsj/a02fe2f3f80653f5622ab255de0a7bda/Pregnancy_Calendar_720x345_Month6_US.jpg

      1. So prove it. You're asking women (and fathers, to be fair) to give up a lot of rights for what seems like an entirely emotional or political whim. Maybe the best possible world is one in which no fetus is aborted and women also aren't forced to give birth against their will, but you tell me how we can resolve that paradox. The point is you have to deal with the rights of women too, or at least acknowledge that you think women should have fewer rights.

        1. I say the same thing about revenge killings and nobody listens to me. These bullshit homicide laws keep restricting my liberty to duel my foes. Or piano wire.

          1. But it's ahistorical and novel to adopt the position that embryos and fetuses have personhood rights. No human society has ever thought so before the 20th century. (Their might have been parental rights related to abortion, but what you're asserting is new and made up out of thin air.)

            I'd say the same if we were talking about the rights of animals. We can extend rights to rodents, and on the surface that might appear progressive, but if it results in the uncontrolled spread of bubonic plague, we might want to reconsider the wisdom of such a course of action.

            Forcing women to carry pregnancy to term and give birth against their will is no small imposition. So you have to explain why that's an acceptable sacrifice for the novel right of fetuses that can't feel pain or think anything.

            1. Forcing women to carry pregnancy to term and give birth against their will is no small imposition.

              It's already been carved out and *should*, auspiciously, be rebutted by the 14A. Men and women have equal rights to abort. Men can't force women to get pregnant any more than women should be able to force men to impregnate them. Men shouldn't be able to force women to carry to term any more than women should be able to force men to provide care post partem.

              But, this isn't about equality, self-evident rights, or the rule of law it's about obligating those with ability to provide for those with need want.

            2. You're changing the subject.

              Your first position was that protecting the rights of fetuses infringes on the liberty of those who would do them harm. The answer was an obvious: Duh, so what?

              Now we're back to the familiar they're not even a real person anyway. Which is the only argument of consequence. If they're people, proscribing killing them is obviously legitimate.

              1. Tony is a secret Russian KGB agent.

              2. They're not people.

                Glad I could solve that for us.

                1. Which is your argument that should be directed at the original commenter, who you instead presented with the bullshit liberty-restricting non-argument. You haven't responded substantively to him yet.

                  Go tell him he wasn't a person. It's roughly in line with what most commentators here say about you.

                  And in the future, consider defining personhood a priori instead of reaching your conclusion backwards based on your policy preferences.

        2. "So prove it." BINGO....

          If Pro-Life was really concerned about individual rights for everyone they'd be lobbying for surviving fetal ejections instead of for FORCED reproduction.

  19. All government policies have tradeoffs. The political process, not the judicial process, should decide this issue, as we do with so many others. States ought to be able regulate or ban abortion as it would be able to with any other medical procedure based on its criteria and values. That's what the Constitution provides. Roe undermines that process and distorts our politics as a result.

    If you think abortion is so damn great and unfettered access to it is the best possible policy and believe it should be constitutionally protected then make that argument. Convince your state legislature to make it law. In some states you can pass a ballot initiative. If you think it's so important the US Constitution should protect it, then dedicate yourself to passing an amendment to the effect. DO THE WORK of convincing your fellow citizens of the righteousness of your prefer policy preference. Make a more convincing argument than your opponents. Change hearts and minds.

    1. Yeah, it's a bit of an end-run around democracy, which is why it was necessary to "find" a right to abortion in the constitution.

      I think the right was there all along in the first amendment. Anti-abortion legislation is clearly religiously motivated. You can't make religious dogma law in this country.

      I'd be OK with a constitutional amendment protecting birth control and abortion too, but Roe is a workable, if problematic alternative given that it's impossible to amend the constitution.

      But I say err on the side of restricting theocrats, just as the founders envisioned.

      1. Odd that there are plenty of atheists who are also pro-life, ain't it?

        1. About 11% of atheists are pro-life. About 11% of any group is nuts.

          1. Including the commentariat here. You are not part of the 89%.

        2. Including this one

          You can do what you want with your life. But when you make a choice that impacts others, you need to take responsibility for your actions.

          Babies don't magically come out of no where. You have the choice not to have sex, or the choice to use birth control, which is cheap and widely available (and often free).

          You having a one night stand with a chick you met at a club, not using protection and knocking her up is a choice both of you made. That child is the result of your choices.

          The vast amount of abortions are people making bad choices and passing the consequences onto someone else (the baby).

          1. "But when you make a choice that impacts others, you need to take responsibility for your actions."

            Carrying a child to term, giving birth, and raising an unwanted child isn't an imposition. Women aren't people!

            Odd for an atheist to base his position around sexual morality. The whole point of the innovation of birth control is that it liberates people to fuck without consequence. That's called freedom. One of the greatest freedoms ever developed by humankind. Why do you hate freedom?

    2. I agree with you. Let the states decide. The last thing the U.S. needs, at this point, is more controversy and bloody riots.

  20. A rights holder living inside a rights holders body. A controversial, unique and entirely personal situation. Procreation through rape is beyond fucked up. SCOTUS could possibly manage to give the Democrats the midterms and 2024. Oh well

    1. A controversial, unique and entirely personal situation.

      Incorrect. By your prior statement, it's an interpersonal situation. By the contextual necessities of your prior statement, it's actually interpersonal among three individuals. Normally, across the breadth of the judicial system, even if you negate the dependent individual as a non-person, it doesn't absolve the others of respecting each other's rights without at least the availability of due process.

  21. I have thought quite highly of my two children and sincerely regret not having at least 3 more. My wife and I are licensed foster care and have provided respite care to foster parents (. Watch there kids while they are away, in my strate, not just anyone can babysit foster children). Never thought of my children as a fetus, They were babies even before they were born. That is how our OB talked about them. And we donate regularly to support the unborn- free diapers and medical care.

  22. 2 weeks to flatten the clump of cells

  23. Watch as the Pro-Life lobbyists practice the oldest propaganda technique around.... The lie, lie, lie, lie until the lie becomes truth propaganda.

    Person. Kids. Baby. Murder. Children.
    All blatant lies to the reality of the subject at hand.
    Because that's what political [WE] Power-Mad mobs do.......

    If they weren't Power-Mad they could accept it as a subject of Individual Choice or as a Gods (not Govs) Territory for judgement.

  24. My hope is that it won't be an issue a short time in the future as high tech sous-vied machines become artificial wombs where at risk births and unwanted children can be brought to term with either less risk or without a desire for an abortion.

    1. In the future, robots will kill all humans.
      #Skynet

Comments are closed.