Supreme Court

What the Leaked Abortion Opinion Gets Wrong About Unenumerated Rights

The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions.


The leaked "1st Draft" opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that was published yesterday by Politico would, if officially released by the Court, overturn both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the key precedents securing a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.

The author of the leaked draft opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, makes the standard conservative argument against abortion rights. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion," Alito writes, "and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'" Alito continues: "The right to an abortion does not fall within this category."

But there is at least one big way in which the unenumerated right at issue in Dobbs may very well fall into this category. Namely, the right to terminate a pregnancy may be justly seen as a subset of the right to bodily integrity. And the right of bodily integrity has a very impressive historical pedigree indeed. In fact, as the legal scholar Sheldon Gelman detailed in a 1994 Minnesota Law Review article, the right to bodily integrity may be traced back to the Magna Carta. That makes it one of the many rights "retained by the people" (in the words of the Ninth Amendment) that were imported from English law into the Constitution.

The constitutional right at issue in Dobbs only fails the "deeply rooted" in history and tradition test (a test wholly invented by the Supreme Court, by the way) when the Court defines the right narrowly. But when the right is defined broadly—defined as a subset of the venerable and longstanding right of bodily integrity, in other words—then the right passes the test.

I am reminded of the words of the political theorist Stephen Macedo, who, while debating the late Robert Bork in 1986, offered this memorable description of the American constitutional system: "When conservatives like Bork treat rights as islands surrounded by a sea of government powers, they precisely reverse the view of the founders, as enshrined in the Constitution, wherein government powers are limited and specified and rendered as islands surrounded by a sea of individual rights."

NEXT: Leaked Abortion Opinion ‘Is Authentic,’ Confirms Supreme Court

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It would have been better for Roe if this reasoning had been used in the original decision. Basing the legal theory on the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution instead of 'penumbras' is far more defensible.

    1. But they didn't want to do that, as doing so would not have given them such scope to pick and choose.

      1. And they can't admit the 9th and 10th exist. Too may other rights would be off-limits to them.

        1. The inalienable right to life

          Day 1: fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins.

          Day 6: embryo begins implantation in the uterus.

          Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child's own blood, often a different type than the mothers'.

          Week 3: By the end of third week the child's backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.

          Week 4: By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg.

          Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop.

          Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.

          Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming.

          Week 8: Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.

          Weeks 9 and 10: Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop. The baby can turn his head, and frown. The baby can hiccup.

          Weeks 10 and 11: The baby can "breathe" amniotic fluid and urinate. Week 11 the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand; all organ systems are functioning. The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.

          Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb.

          Week 14: At this age, the heart pumps several quarts of blood through the body every day.

          Week 15: The baby has an adult's taste buds.

          Month 4: Bone Marrow is now beginning to form. The heart is pumping 25 quarts of blood a day. By the end of month 4 the baby will be 8-10 inches in length and will weigh up to half a pound.

          Week 17: The baby can have dream (REM) sleep.

          Week 19: Babies can routinely be saved at 21 to 22 weeks after fertilization, and sometimes they can be saved even younger

          Week 20: The earliest stage at which Partial birth abortions are performed. At 20 weeks the baby recognizes its' mothers voice.

          Months 5 and 6: The baby practices breathing by inhaling amniotic fluid into its developing lungs. The baby will grasp at the umbilical cord when it feels it. Most mothers feel an increase in movement, kicking, and hiccups from the baby. Oil and sweat glands are now functioning. The baby is now twelve inches long or more, and weighs up to one and a half pounds.

          1. Notice "human" right there on "Day 1"... And according to Rob Misek, they are not "human" if they are Jewish, and the NAZIs want to slaughter them, even after they are born! And if the NAZIs do slaughter them, Rob Misek will be right there to lie about it, and hide their NAZI crimes!

          2. Congrats. You just made almost every woman who has ever tried to conceive a child a murderer given that a rather small percentage of fertilized embryos make it to delivery. You would also criminalize IVF, totally and completely. In your quest to purify the world of baby murderers you will incriminate the very people who most want living breathing healthy babies.

            1. Is your best argument that dying of natural causes is murder?

              1. Is your claim that every single day (quite apart from abortion) hundreds of thousands of babies die of natural causes in this country, becuase embroyos don't implant?

                1. I’m simply saying that if the mother takes no action to harm or withhold care from the baby, yet it still dies, it is from natural causes not murder.

                  1. Ya know; Like a *family* decision to pull the plug on a sibling who's been in a coma for 30-years.. Just keep pumping that oxygen and fentanyl and opioids in the dead body cause Rob Misek says your siblings are still human even if they require every body function to be artificially induced and couldn't be anything but considered dead without it.

                    1. May you be terminated in your sleep.

                    2. Thank goodness... I don't want to be pumped with oxygen after my time is passed and I wouldn't want to exist if my parents didn't want me....

                      BUT YOUR NARCISSISTIC POWER-MAD beliefs want to dictate that decision for everyone..................

                      You see Rob; You don't give a sh*t about anyone but your own moral beliefs and SHOVING them down other people's throats. You have no respect for other people's PERSONAL LIFES...

                      Why don't you go get a life and stop messing with everyone else's.

                    3. While you may not care whether you live or die if your waste of skin parents consider you inconvenient.

                      Abortion forces your stupid decision to die on others who haven’t made it.

                      The inalienable right to life was enumerated because of people like you.

                    4. An "inalienable right to life" does not depend on the ENSLAVEMENT of other people.

                    5. There is no right that frees anyone from the consequences of their actions.

                    6. And there is no right to FORCE consequences on others because of one's own Moral Belief.

                    7. Hahaha, that’s exactly what every inalienable right does.

                    8. Everyone's inalienable rights are dependent on your religious beliefs? Go on with your bad self.

                    9. Ya know what is a God given (natural) 'inalienable' right???

                      Women being completely in control of their pregnancy.. Where ever she goes; it goes. Whatever she eats; it eats. Whatever she breaths; it breaths. And pre Roe v Wade; when she dies; it dies.

                      Seems the only one UR trying to fight against is God and nature itself. Why doesn't the stork just drop off an individual baby on Wednesday at 3PM? By golly; then you wouldn't have anything to fight about -- but I'm sure you'll come up with some other delusional theory to play dictator.

                    10. It sounds like your god and you the murderer of helpless innocent human babies.

                      Is that where your idea of rights comes from? Cite required.

                      Yeah, I’m against that.

                2. Hundreds of thousands of people die of natural causes every day. What's your point?(To quote James Moriarty, "That's what people do.")

            2. Oh the stupid miscarriage argument? A miscarriage isn't a deliberate act.

              1. In assuming from your post that the gray box Misek made that argument. Are we surprised from a Holocaust denier that they would make such a spacious argument.

                1. Ignorance is bliss.

                  Just keep pressing that bigotry button, and do us all a favour.

                  1. YOU are the bigot. You are a literal nazi that’s wants to exterminate Jews. There is no reason to come to a libertarian website at all. You are a far leftist genocidal totalitarian who worships Adolph Hitler.

                    1. You nor anyone else has ever refuted what I say or proven what you claim about me.

                      Who cares what you think?

              2. "A miscarriage isn't a deliberate act" RU SURE????

                Better shut down all the alcohol, tobacco, work schedules, monitor sleep schedules, food intake of EVERYONE'S PERSONAL PREGNANCY just to be sure................. /s

          3. Roe vs Wade in 1973 decided that the fetus is not a person because it is “the mothers body”.

            DNA fingerprinting science in 1989 proved conclusively that the fetus is not the woman’s body.

            The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 declares the fetus is a human being and therefore a person.

            All the elements necessary to collapse RvW are present. It just needs to be brought to court.

            1. FACT: If it's not "the mothers body"; Why can't it live on it's own???

              UR so gung-ho about ***PRETENDING*** (<-keyword) it's an individual why don't you put your imagination to test. Shouldn't be any problem ejecting the fetus and allowing it to escape it's prison then.

              1. Your “fact” is a stupid question.

                A baby is a dependent. A separate individual living human in a symbiotic relationship with the mother whose choice of actions placed it there.

                1. Make it INDIVIDUAL Rob!!!! What the problem?

                  1. In this dialogue, “the problem” is your lack of comprehension.

                    In symbiotic relationships different individuals live together.

                    Don’t murder the baby and it will leave healthy normally in 9 months.

                    1. Is my sperm a symbiotic relationship? It can't live on it's own either; but it can create a baby... I guess masturbation is "murdering the baby" the unborn baby lol..... 🙂

                      You can believe whatever you want; just don't shove your pathetic opinions down other people's PERSONAL LIFES by the force of Gov-Guns. FORCING your personal beliefs into other people's PERSONAL LIFES isn't Justice --- It's dictation.

                    2. You obviously do believe whatever shit you want because you certainly don’t comprehend the science of conception.

                      Good people don’t let other people murder. That’s why the inalienable right to life was enumerated in the constitution.

                    3. Life of what? Mythical Creatures in your head?

                    4. Like I said, your problem is your lack of comprehension.

                      Willful ignorance is most likely.

                    5. "Willful ignorance" is pretending two individuals exist while ignoring the very fact that their delusion is insisting two individuals aren't ever allowed to *actually* be made.

                      My thumb has a pulse and is in a symbiotic relationship with me. Does that mean you (the state) owns my thumb too? Protect the 'life' of the thumb!!! Ban all surgery tools!

                    6. Fuckwit.

                      Your thumb is you. It has your DNA. It ISNT living in symbiosis with you.

                      This is what I mean by your willful ignorance. I can’t believe that anyone could be as stupid as you.

                      Then again…

                    7. And if my thumb was transplanted from a donor... Then all the sudden it's not me???

                      Your DNA argument doesn't hold water in any way shape or form.
                      "Your thumb is you."
                      And as much can be said about a pregnant woman.

                      "This is what I mean by your willful ignorance. I can’t believe that anyone could be as stupid as you."
                      And as much as can be said about some magical DNA is a person belief.

                    8. While the individual cells in a thumb may be living they do not meet the scientific criteria of a living individual, like every baby does. They must always be just a part of a living individual.

                      One of these criteria is growing to maturity and being able to reproduce.

                      Only living persons have inalienable rights, which pertain to their entire bodies only.

                      A baby person is still a person and meet all the criteria of a living human individual.

                      DNA proves their uniqueness. That they are not simply a part of another’s body.

                    9. No amount of your frenetic thumbfucking will ever result in baby thumbs.

                    10. The fact that your parents were once each living unborn babies proves that your abysmal stupidity is not due to their nature but your own repeated bad decisions to be wilfully ignorant.

                    11. I hope that witnesses of our dialogue recognize that one of us is advocating the reality of science, the nature of truth, while the other is appealing to emotional fears based on lies, the nature of propaganda.

                      Those who value truth, reality will not lie and appeal to emotion to persuade others to do what we want. Those who don’t will.

                      When getting what you want supersedes honestly sharing reality, that is the source of all conflict on earth.

                      Graphically illustrated by the debate over the greatest genocide in earths history, abortion.

                    12. Funny.... What "baby" Rob???

                      UR B.S. 'Science' still cannot make a living individual "baby person" Pre Roe v Wade so without *delusions* and *mythical creatures* theory; it's still just a donor thumb in every sense of the discussion.

                      But the good news is!!!!! You and your dependent family can full-heartedly totally live by those ?facts?.. UR free to make those decisions..........

                      U just don't have any right to pull out Gov-Guns and force your ?facts? on other people's life. Stop messing with everyone else... Live your own life!

                    13. You just repeat your willful ignorance and I’ll repeat science and logic.

                      I’m satisfied with these optics.

          4. I read your statement, was this simply a statement of your beliefs? While certainly entitled to your opinion, what are your credentials to make your opinion something I should consider?

            1. What’s your point?

              What difference will it make to your position on abortion If the points are verified science or not?

              1. Reality would make a TON of difference. There wouldn't be ranting and whaling over Abortion if there was just a law that required an EJECTED fetuses to be allowed to live on its own.

                But that's not what the Pro-Life crowd wants (because they know they're delusional) they want Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.

                1. Answer the question then.

                  If the points I presented are scientific fact, how will your position on abortion change?

                2. But that's not what the Pro-Life crowd wants (because they know they're delusional) they want Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.

                  You're arguing the Pro-life crowd wants rape?

                  Man, Scott Adams was right about the left having to lie about the Pro-Life crowd's beliefs.

                  1. "You're arguing the Pro-life crowd wants rape?"...
                    Well, isn't that true. You want to rape the mother of her body autonomy.

                    1. DNA proves that the baby isn’t her body.

                      The woman doesn’t own another human being.

                    2. Set it free then!!!! Free the Fetus!!!
                      The only thing proven here is your ignorance.

                    3. Leave it alone, without coercion, and the baby will leave on its own terms.

                    4. "Leave it alone" -- That's pretty rich coming from someone who refuses to leave other **REAL** people's pregnancy alone.

                      Ya know that robber/rapist criminal who just walked into your house surprisingly, drives your car, rapes your wife and eats your food???

                      Well, Just "Leave them alone, without coercion, and the criminal will leave on its own terms".. After all; That's what you get for leaving your door unlocked.

                    5. The baby is not guilty of any crime.

                      It was the woman, whose choice of actions, forced another person to temporarily reside within her.

                      You don’t get to kill people that you invite into your house to live for 9 months just because you decided to renege.

                    6. That's the problem Rob....
                      She didn't INVITE it and she's asking it to leave.
                      My assertion is 100% accurate. So the door was left unlocked - that's a reason to FORCE enslavement?

                      And since you haven't figured out a way to get it to leave as a "baby"; you want to pretend you can FORCE her to reproduce.

                    7. Participation in intercourse is all the invitation a baby needs.

                      That’s not the baby’s choice, it’s a basic fact of human science.

                      It is Simply the consequence of an action.

                    8. What "Baby"????

            2. Look, he’s no biologist…

          5. a little smaller than a grain of rice when existing TX law kicks in to force gestation. Though TX will revert to a blanket ban now, so forced gestation even for microscopic cells.

            1. Does size matter? What size constitutes a living being? Some babies are born weighing under a pound, and survive, do they have rights? Or are they to small to have rights?

              1. If you steal an acorn from my property, it is theft, but (Usually) Government Almighty has the good judgment to not prosecute. It would be a waste of time and resources, over something utterly trivial.
                If you steal a mature oak tree from my property, and saw it up for your lumber, that can be worth thousands of dollars; even tens of thousands, for a really large, mature tree. Government Almighty WILL prosecute for this, and rightly so. It's called "good judgment", even though both cases are clearly theft.
                This is a clear and fair analogy to "murdering" a zygote v/s an already-born human.

                Do YOU want to punish the tree-theft and the acorn-theft as the same?

                1. You’re making a case against your right to life.

                  1. I'm making a case for "good judgment", which seems to be a concept ENTIRELY foreign to blithering ideological idiots like YOU, slave to NAZI lies!

                    1. Yet you have never refuted anything I’ve said but you still deny it nor have you ever proven your claims about me but you keep making them.

                      You demonstrate poor judgment and claim that the right to life is based on good judgment.

                      Be careful what you wish for.

                    2. I wish that NAZIs would admit that they were defeated in 1945!

                    3. What makes you believe they haven’t?

                    4. The FACT that NAZIs like YOU continue to subscribe to the NAZI lies!

                    5. I’m almost ready to concede that you don’t deserve the right to life.

                    6. Can you imagine that if more Jews behaved like you, how many people here would be “anti semitic”?

                    7. Can you imagine how many more friends (among rational, data-driven people) you might have, if you weren't such a NAZI-loving NAZI?

              2. Size correlates with development and yes it matters. With respect, I don't share your moral beliefs about preventing a clump of cells representing a genetic blueprint for a human implanting on the uterine wall, and therefore don't support a government right to require non-interference with such implanting backed by force, or similar policy.

                1. And I don't consider it a clump of cells. And at some point, no matter what size, it becomes a distinct human being. You can try to avoid that, but it does happen. I can't support your morality that allows the killing of a human being out of convenience.

                  1. So don't "kill" it just eject it...
                    Problem solved.

                    Oh whats that? Can't be done? Why? Oh maybe because it isn't the "baby" or the "child" delusional propaganda has framed it as.

                2. And after about week 12 or so, the correlation between size and development is not that strong. That is why ultrasounds after the 12th week are not definitive for establishing fetal age.

                  1. THIS is why we need the ultrasound "shaming wand"!

                    What about religious exemptions from (alternatives for) the "shaming wand"? If our religious beliefs are "sincerely held"?

           for details!

                3. Additionally, implantation within the uterine wall occurs within 72 hours of insemination. Just so we are clear. When does it become a human in your opinion? What is the difference between a baby born at 35 weeks and a baby still in utero at 35 weeks? And why should one have different protections and rights than the other?

                  1. The real argument is, does a supposed right to life (if we were to hypothetically grant that) trump a right to bodily autonomy?

                    Meaning: Does it matter whether the zygote/embryo/fetus is alive (it is), a human being (it is), is a person (it isn't), is conscious (it isn't), or experiences pain rather than just reacts to it (it doesn't)?

                    The answer, in my view, is that it doesn't matter. Nothing above negates the fact that a walking, talking, breathing, conscious human being morally and irrefutably has absolute authority over their own body, including anything attached to it or inside of it in whatever fashion.

                    No one cares that it has its own DNA or fingerprints. No one cares if it has detectable cardiac activity or if it reflexively moves away from stimuli. No one cares that you think it's a special gift from your invisible sky friend.

                    What we do care about, is whether this thing has a right to be, and live, and grow, and steal nutrients from, inside of our body without our explicit and continued consent. No one has that right. Not our partner, not a stranger, not a politician, and not some growing mass of potential human person.

                    Arguing over the characteristics of the fetus is a misdirection and frankly, 100% irrelevant.

                    No, I do not consider the right to bodily autonomy to be an "inconvenience." You don't consider an affront to your free speech rights a mere inconvenience, right? And free speech isn't even a natural right like bodily autonomy (which can cause severe psychological trauma if trespassed). Nor does being denied free speech typically risk your life. The U.S. has an appallingly high maternal mortality rate; I do not believe the government should have the authority to mandate a civilian to risk death by forcing a continuance of pregnancy that could and would otherwise be safely terminated.

                    1. They have conscious thoughts. They dream and react to stimuli and they most certainly do react to pain. They also are a person even if you don't like that.

                    2. The risk of pregnancy is not that high, and neither is the risk of abortion that much lower. People do die from both. Stop pretending otherwise. And after about 24 weeks in almost every single case a cesarean or an induction is actually safer than an abortion.

                    3. So what percentage of abortions are done after 24 weeks? The sources I'm seeing say that 90%+ abortions are performed before 12 weeks. Without looking up any extra data I'm going to hazard a guess that greater than half of them are the morning after pill.

                      This is the problem with the abortion debate. Anti abortion arguments almost universally hinge around conflating the morning after pill with sticking a blender up a woman's cooch to chop up a baby an hour before delivery and pro abortion arguments almost universally hinge around pretending every single abortion is an ectopic pregnancy or the morning after pill and that late term abortions don't exist. Both sides are happy to engage in this charade because it lets them parade around their favorite cast of villains and victims when what really needs to be admitted by everyone is that there is a grey area. There is not a magical date or medical event that suddenly transforms a clump of cells into a full fledged human being. Almost everyone agrees that at conception a fetus is worth more than fingernail clippings, but it's less than a full human life. Almost everyone reviles chopping up whole babies close to delivery. The mistake is believing that a line in the center can be determined and agreed upon, because no matter where you pick it lots and lots of people will be very mad about it and the same tired conflating extremes with edge cases will be done. It should be properly treated like the grey zone that it is.

                    4. Did the critter just crawl up inside the birthing person? No? Then bodily autonomy is a weak tea argument when discussing the killing of another human being.

                    5. Anything goes, eh ziemsky?
                      You're not gonna make it.

                    6. "Anything goes, eh?"

                      No. I do not believe in abortion in an otherwise healthy pregnancy after viability; there is no reason to end the fetus' life at that point.

                      However, the fetus still does not have the right to trespass another human being's body against their will and continued consent. So, in the rare case that someone waits until after viability to realize they don't want to carry the pregnancy to term, or in the more likely case that legal restrictions and anti-abortion "crisis pregnancy" people mislead them into missing the cutoff date, they should have the legal right to induce a preterm delivery; this results in a living baby and a pregnancy-free unwilling parent. I would support a requirement that the birthing person sign away all parental rights before the induction is done, since delivering a preemie greatly increases the risk of lifelong health issues for the resulting child.

                      soldiermedic78, I suggest checking pregnancy-related mortality statistics again, from an unbiased source. I am referring to any complication from a continued pregnancy, including preeclampsia and such. Pre-viability abortion is much safer than full pregnancy and delivery; C-sections are major abdominal surgery, including all the risks. Epidurals (which a large number of birthing patients opt for or are pushed into) are injections right into the spine; one wrong move and you're paralyzed from the waist down. Post-viability abortions are insanely rare, and again, are only done as an absolute last resort by loving parents of a very wanted fetus. So, I do believe they should stay legal for those scenarios, but I do not include them in any weighing of abortion risk, because they are in a category of their own (and sure as hell are not "elective").

                      Anyway. The whole point is that no matter the subjectivity of just how much a person's life is at risk during pregnancy or not, it should not ever be the government's call. The government does not get to decide that civilians must risk their life, against their morality and against their consent, just because it thinks the silly civilians are making a mountain out of a molehill.

                      DesigNate, It doesn't matter what the man did or did not do to prevent or allow the woman to fall pregnant; just because he had sex with her, does not mean either partner consented to pregnancy. And even if you believe any sex is consent to pregnancy, consent is not a one-time thing but an ongoing permission. A pregnant person could consent to sex and even consent to pregnancy, but then revoke her consent within a week or two. Just like with sex, when a person wants you out of their body, you immediately vacate; if you stay longer than that, you are--trespassing, to put it lightly. And personally, yes, I believe that if someone or something is trespassing your body, you have every natural right to use lethal force to end the trespass. No matter how conscious or pain-capable that entity is.

                      Pro-choicers and pro-lifers both want the same thing: An end to abortion. We just disagree on how to get there. Pro-choicers want to give women the choice but change the environment so that unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions, are largely a thing of the past. Pro-lifers want to force women to continue unwanted pregnancies against their will, presumably jailing pregnant women for nine months to this end if need be, and not lift a finger to change the rate of unwanted pregnancies because that would require you shelling out money to less fortunate people (so your money is a higher priority than fetuses' lives?) or else supporting policies (genuine sex ed for teens) that make you feel icky.

                      n00bdragon, I agree. I think all sides feel a bit defensive when our deeply held beliefs are attacked as stupid or horrifyingly immoral. It's funny because I thought libertarian values would include pro-choice as a matter of course, since I see it as a bodily autonomy/individual rights issue; but I guess it matters how it's framed within a given person's belief system.

              3. Start here -> "babies are born"...

            2. Remember when Dr. Seuss said "A person's a person, no matter how small?" That is, until he found out that those icky pro-lifers were using his slogan.

      2. I suspect that acknowledging that the 9th and 10th amendments exist and guarantee individual rights beyond those explicitly spelled out in the first 8 amendments would set a precedent that they didn't want to set. Some people might get the crazy idea that the government can't just order people around willy-nilly.

        1. The 9th amendment didn't help them anyway, because in order to be 'retained', a right had to have existed in the first place, and abortion was not treated as a right at the time the 9th amendment was ratified.

          1. Nonsense. Rights exist (or not) independent of government. Governments may recognize a right or not, but failure to recognize it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

            (I take no position here on whether access to abortion is a right).

            1. What rights exist without social constructs? Unless we have rules, there are no such things.

            2. Since when is homicide for profit a right?

              1. Just as PETA..

            3. At last. A sane voice. Kudos squirrelloid. There is no grey area when it comes to abortion. It's a yes or no, period end of story issue. But what kills me is all this blabber about constitutional rights. Did anybody here ever pay attention in civics class? And worse, those of you that went to law school, like myself, were you awake in con law? THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS! It protects certain enumerated rights from being infringed upon by the government. If you need a primer go and read the 3rd amendment, it will all make sense. Look for your rights in your State's Constitution. Is there a right to privacy protected by the US Constitution. NO. Can the federal government invade your privacy, NO. See 4th amendment. But better yet the 10th amendment leaves all those unenumerated issues to your State. In Florida Art. 1 Sec. 23 guarantees the right to privacy. An article voted for by the people and not pulled out of Harry Blackmum's penumbra. As it should be in a Republic. We must stop looking to the federal Behemoth for solutions.

      3. ^ this.

        They couldn't find for a general right to privacy because it would destroy so much of the regime's apparatus. FDA, DEA, etc etc

        1. ^BINGO!

    2. It doesn’t matter what reasoning they used. When SCOTUS said you have an unlimited right to abortion in the first trimester, some rights in the second trimester and no rights in the third trimester, any potentially reasonable justification wouldn’t make sense.

    3. Right to privacy is a perfectly reasonable and long-standing assertion re abortion. Ben Franklin wrote an article in 1729 - in response to an encyclopedia type entry on means by which women could 'regain menses'. He wrote it using the names Celia Shortface and Martha Careful. And specifically writing as those ladies are shocked and scandalized that the secrets of their sex are being paraded around in public as if that is a proper subject for public discourse (esp presumably around men and children).
      Sounds like a right to privacy to me. Esp when the timing for that then was quickening which is about 4 weeks earlier than modern viability

      1. What is the right of abortionists to commit homicide in exchange for payment based on?

        1. The same right to commit homicide of beef cows in exchange for payment; because lets get real. That mythical creature is less independent and less functional than a cow is.

          1. Wow, I thought you were deluded after reading your first few comments. Now it's apparent that you are mad. Had a lot of fun playing with broken thermometers as a child, didn't you.? Quicksilver so pretty, pretty.

      2. So if I kill someone in private it's okay? Because of a right to privacy?

        1. I've lost interest in hearing all the ways in which men and post-menopausal women try to self-righteously strawman someone else's decision.

          1. Too fucking bad. There are plenty of fertile women who feel the same. Your opinion matters no more than mine. Get over yourself.

            1. When a fertile woman posts in a sewer like these comment threads, then she will be the first. But I will listen to what she posts - unlike most commenters here.

        2. How about you just eject the fetus from it's "prison" and let it die of "natural causes".. Seems to be the opinion around here.

          Oh yeah; that's right. That's not acceptable either because it won't allow Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.

    4. "That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'"

      What a bunch of absolute horseshit. So the constitution has to write every single right a person is entitled to? It is the exact opposite! if It ain't mentioned it is a right not to be taken!

  2. "The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions."

    Not according to the people who champion Roe v. Wade.

    1. So many of them feel the 2nd Amendment only protects a collective right.

    2. Very True; but not a reason of substance.

  3. Once you have accepted the notion of "Deeply rooted rights" such as the right to self defense and the like, you are basically ceding your argument to "Tradition". And once you have done that, you need to understand why the tradition of respecting bodily integrity ought to also include the right to abortion, when pretty much every single contemporary at any time from the magna carte up until the 70s considered bodily integrity to not include abortion.

    But even if we accept a right to bodily integrity, I don't think Mr Root's point holds. If everyone has a right to Bodily Integrity, then you need to deal with the fact that in an abortion, a person deprives an unborn baby with its right to "Bodily Integrity".

    1. I suppose you could go with the Shakespeare solution. You can remove the infant from your body, but you can't harm them in the process or it is assault/murder.

      1. Sure, I don't have a problem with that as long as we recognize that the parents don't get to leave the infant to die- whether it was delivered via natural labor, or removed via a doctor. In either case, the parent has a duty to the child they created to ensure that the child is protected and cared for.

        1. What about the rights of a woman to NOT be lied to, by a Lying Lothario? And have her reproductive services STOLEN for her, by deception?

          As soon as she is pregnant, the abuse begins! And THEN she finds out that he has 5 other girlfriends! Abortion is "veto power" against scumbucket men, is what it is. I for one do not want to take the side of scumbucket men, against women, in this case, when it means that that many more genes and social influences of scumbucket men will be passed on, against the wishes of women who "learned better", but too late... And yes, some women practice “entrapment” on the other side, as well; the abuse is a 2-way street…

          Anyway, w/regards to the sexes abusing each other, I have “been to the mountain top” to see the Guru in the cave, and have learned MUCH wisdom, which I will now pass on to you… Hooray!

          Q: What is the difference between a woman who just can NOT find a man who treats her well, and so, she is constantly shuttling between abusive men? And a man who abuses women, by, for example yanking on the gazongas too hard?

          A: The first is a “jerks juggler”, and the second is a “jugs jerker”!

          Can you say,
          “Jerks-jugglers juggle jugs-jerking jerks”?

          One (in a free nation) can FLEE the harem, after the deception becomes apparent, AND get an abortion! Many-many men do NOT want to pick up a ready-made family; they want to start their own, with their own genes! It is deeply buried into our biology, this is... Otherwise, the scumbucket men will pass on their genes, and the decent men will raise all of the babies... Not their own genetic babies. So, to whatever basis human behavior is genetically based, the scumbucket genes will prevail, and the good-responsible-fathering-genes will go extinct. We will become like horses and elephant seals and others, capable of fighting all day to gather our harems and father offspring, but no longer able to be responsible fathers. This is what is at stake, here...

          Post-abortion fled-the-harem deceived woman is now free to find a better father, free of the ready-made family, that many-many men (for good reason) do not want. It is that simple.

      2. Even if you accept the fact that a woman possesses the right to remove, even kill, the fetus inside of her... what right does a doctor have to do so?
        The doctor performing the abortion is a 3rd body invited by the first body (pregnant woman) to commit homicide and end the 2nd body's (unborn child) life.
        I'm not sure abortion can be outlawed, but 3rd parties committing homicide already is in most other cases.

        1. Interesting point.

    2. A fetus isn't a person and has no rights. That's the part of Roe everyone ignores.

      1. When does a human become a person, then?

        Try to justify it in such a way that does not exclude large swathes of humanity from personhood.

        1. When born. To have a clear cut point I'd say when the water breaks.

          1. So two minutes before they are born, you can kill them? A week before? Even though they can live perfectly fine outside the uterus? That's a pretty extreme position to take.

            1. Two minutes before they are born they have no rights at all. It's up to the state to decide if it's legal to kill them. Morally it doesn't matter what the state says.

              1. So, the birth canal is the magical portal? And you see nothing wrong with that? So, you can survive outside the womb, but because of a chemical trigger hasn't started the birth process (which actually isn't true, if you study partition you would understand that your body actually starts the birth process weeks to months before active labor begins) you don't get to live, even though you could?

                1. If someone is going to argue for abortion, you have to start off with the premise that abortion is killing a baby. Now, there may be some rational arguments that in certain cases, killing a baby is the lesser of many evils - say, Baby Hitler, or a rape baby, or a mutant baby with COVID-2000 - but you have to wrestle with the immense gravity of killing a human.

                  When you simply argue "it's just a clump of cells" or "it's not a human", you're dodging the core issue, and you can't possibly be persuasive.

                  "Pro-choice" advocates need to make better, more persuasive arguments than they currently are making.

                  1. As always, I come down on the side of "government banning this would have terrible repercussions". As libertarians we understand that banning weed doesn't stop people from smoking weed, and that the punishments are far worse than the effects of the drug. Abortion is the same way. Do we want women throwing themselves down staircases or going to illegal clinics because the government got involved in what is essentially a moral issue?

                    1. So banning murder is stupid because banning murders hasn't stopped murders?

                    2. Ask the question, "is saving the lives of 60 million black babies worth 100,000 women throwing themselves down staircases or going to illegal clinics"?

                      Ultimately, this is a question of competing interests, and there is no clean one-size-fits-all. So let's not shove everyone into the same box - let people in the states experiment with different policies.

                      There are certainly ways to ban things that will have terrible repercussions. But there are also ways to ban things that don't have those same negative consequences.

                    3. Person smoking weed effects just them.

                      Are you for people giving a joint to an infant?

                  2. "If someone is going to argue for abortion, you have to start off with the premise that abortion is killing a baby. Now, there may be some rational arguments that in certain cases, killing a baby is the lesser of many evils - say, Baby Hitler, or a rape baby, or a mutant baby with COVID-2000 - but you have to wrestle with the immense gravity of killing a human.

                    When you simply argue "it's just a clump of cells" or "it's not a human", you're dodging the core issue, and you can't possibly be persuasive.

                    "Pro-choice" advocates need to make better, more persuasive arguments than they currently are making."

                    Which is why I, someone who is pro abortion, so often vehemently argue against pro abortion/choice posts.
                    Admit it's homicide. Man up.
                    But "pro choice" people need to pose as morally righteous and can't be honest. This is what pisses me off.
                    Even if I agree with the desired outcome, disingenuous arguments for it are bullshit.

                    1. I'm of much the same, although I find it morally repugnant, I believe it should be legal to some agreed upon time, I prefer 15 or 16 weeks, as if it takes you longer than 4 months to decide, tough shit.

                2. That's up to the state to decide, legally. If you have a strong opinion one way or another, the state is the proper place to take that opinion.

                  Morally, what the state says doesn't matter.

                  I don't know how much clearer I can be.

                  1. That isn't true of rights. States argued that involuntary servitude was legal, but that was changed. So the question then becomes how do we define a right and how do we address when two rights conflict.

                    1. Like I said, if you want to make the unborn a person, the state is where you argue that should happen. Until then, a person gains rights when they are born, for obvious reasons.

                    2. What obvious reasons? My middle child was born at 35 weeks, my oldest at 36 weeks, (both were induced due to medical complications) why do they have more rights than an infant at those same ages, yet remain within the womb?

          2. The water doesn't break in 85% of births.
            If a woman's water breaks that's a bad sign

            1. Uh, 100% of births result in water breaking because the kid is inside the amniotic sack which needs to break. Around 1 in 10 mothers have their water break PRIOR to labor. And in most cases it isn't a bad thing, it's just a thing. (Bad things include there being meconium in the amniotic fluid or water breaking before the baby is full term, or substantially before the mother goes into labor.)

              1. If it breaks greater than 24 hours before onset of labor, that's a really bad thing, that's why most doctors will induce labor if labor has not begun within that 24 hours. But that's just a quibble.

          3. When born. To have a clear cut point I'd say when the water breaks.

            That's a completely arbitrary standard with no basis in...well...anything, really, save for it being convenient to a particular agenda.

            1. Of course it's arbitrary. There is no non-arbitrary line for the definition of "life".

              1. And since if is arbitrary your or my definitions will differ and as thus, there won't be agreements and if we are using that arbitrary decision to decide the conflict between two rights (the rights of the mother to bodily autonomy and the rights of the infant to life (which I would argue is more important than bodily autonomy, and the most basic right)) then the best course is to decide which right is being more restricted and error on that side. In this case, the fetus loses more rights than the mother.

              2. When the sperm and ovum combine yo create a genetically independent organism, it is not arbitrary. Pretty clear line.

                The argument most make now is the balance of rights between two living things, fetus and mother.

              3. Of course it's arbitrary. There is no non-arbitrary line for the definition of "life".

                That is complete and utter nonsense. While the line between "life" and "non-life" is not always a bright one, and the exact definition is one on which biologist can and do disagree, the ones that are accepted to any significant degree have their basis in reality-based scientific observation and principles rather than having been arrived at simply because they support a socio-political view.

                1. That is also true.

                2. Are viruses alive?

                  1. Are viruses alive?

                    What part of...

                    "While the line between "life" and "non-life" is not always a bright one, and the exact definition is one on which biologist can and do disagree"

                    ...did you not understand?

                  2. Yes. Virus are alive. They seek out replication of their DNA strands.

                    Do they have recognized rights?


                    Should they?

                    No. Neither should bugs.

                    1. If the last 1,000 years of common law and legal analysis and science is any yardstick, the fact that some property can replicate their DNA has no relevance when adjudicating the rights of a human being who can perform the same trick.

                  3. The argument can be made either way. But a virus has much less characteristics of life than a fetus does at any point in it's development.

              4. Also note that the standard I referred to as being arbitrary was not for the definition of "life", so your comment is not only incorrect it is non-responsive.

              5. There is no non-arbitrary line for the definition of "life".

                That is just silly, of course there is. Here is the definition of organism:

                an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of parts or organs more or less separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being

                A fetus is an organism unto itself and a living being by definition. The question is not whether it is alive, the question is "do parasites have rights of their host?" Ask the right question and you get much better answers.

                1. And of course, children are not parasites. If anything they are symbiotes.

                2. It's actually could be better argued that's it's a symbiot not a parasite. Not all symbiotic relationships are evenly beneficial. The infant does provide alter the hormones of the mother, often giving them a greater sense of well being (although not always) especially as it ages. Therefore, while the infant does receive more from the mother, the mother does receive something from the infant, ergo it is a symbiotic relationship rather than a parasitic relationship.

                  1. The baby also does the crucial life-task of furthering the mother's genetic material to the next generation. The mother may not prize that function at any given time, but it is a useful one that her body was evolved to provide.

                    1. Of course. But the people who taught follow the science so often ignore the basics of evolutionary science. Without a doubt furthering the existence of the species is the most basic function of any living organism. Because some people choose not to, while others can't for medical reasons, doesn't change this underlying truth. There are always exceptions that doesn't disprove the overall rule.

                3. Pregnancy also heightens some senses (such as smell) while decreasing others, such as pain. It also alters the digestive system. As in any symbiotic relationship the infant does this for it's own survival but there is an argument to be made that these changes also benefits the mother.

              6. I think there’s a pretty clear line for when life begins. Personhood, and all the rights that entails, is a little trickier wicket.

          4. So anyone taken from the womb by c-section is not human, and anyone created via the inevitable artifical womb is not human?

        2. Generally legally, it's when they are born, though some places will charge you with a second murder for an unborn infant.

          1. Except that isn't true. Most states ban abortion after the 20th week except in rare circumstances and several states have banned it after 15 weeks now, and even less. In fact, in most the western countries it's banned after 15 weeks. So, the courts and legislatures have declared that at some point prior to birth, the fetus does have certain rights.

            1. That's way too early

              1. Why? Four months is not enough time to make a decision? Why? Making an assertion is not proof, or a valid argument.

            2. That doesn't mean the unborn has rights, it only means that it is illegal to kill them. You understand how this is different, right?

              1. The right to life is a right. Or do you disagree?

                1. After you are born and gain rights, of course.

                  Granted to somebody who is not a citizen because he is not born? Debatable.

                  Should mothers who miscarry be charged with manslaughter?

                  1. Miscarriage is a normal occurrence, does not require the actions of the mother. Why does being born suddenly give you a right? And define what being born means? Because I can make several arguments as to what is and isn't birth. Does a preterm infant at 21 weeks have rights? If yes, why doesn't the fetus at 21 weeks?

                    1. The constitution defines an American as one BORN.

              2. So the unborn has the status as property?

        3. Somewhere in the late second trimester.

          1. Why?

            1. Because that is when he decided based on no scientific information.

            2. Frontal cortex starts basic functions. No frontal cortex function, no person.

              1. The frontal cortex begins formation very early in pregnancy. And if we are going to argue functionality, the frontal cortex is not fully mature or fully functional until age 25 in most people.

                1. Basic functions. What exactly those are is debatable. But that is not not the same as first formation of frontal cortex or a fully functional frontal cortex.

                  1. A fully functional (you actually mean prefrontal cortex BTW, it's the frontal lobe) doesn't occur until your mid 20s. As for basic functions, the heart and respiratory system begin functioning around 7 days but are immature and require further development. But these both continue to develop after birth too. In fact, any biological development phase continues after birth. Trying to tie a single biological function based on birth is a foolish and unscientific argument.

                    1. The whole idea of quibbling over which function makes a person is disturbing. Once the order has been placed and the die is set, there is a no return policy.

                    2. I agree.

                    3. In defense of former libertarian's point, the distinction is that the brain waves associated with normal human thought do start to form around the time he or she suggests. And, really, the debates between 15 weeks and late in the second trimester is surprisingly small. From what I've read, about 95% of abortions happen in the first trimester, 4.5% happen in the second and 0.5% happen in the third. So, you're basically debating that 4.5% (at least based on your earlier comment).

                    4. I agree. I just wonder why he chose the point he did. If we limit it to 15 or 16 weeks, we are already into second trimester. So, it becomes a matter of 4 weeks or 8 weeks. One to two months. I have to wonder why it should take more than four months to make that kind of decision. It wouldn't even be 5 % (4.5+0.5) as I wonder how many of those 4.5 % in the second trimester wait until after 16 weeks. So in actuality it's less than 5%.

                      As to the normal human being that still leaves out a lot, such as people with schizophrenia or autism. As both of these are genetically linked, I would find it troubling to state normal brainwave activity of a human is a good defining characteristic. And as I pointed out the brainwave activity that sets us apart from other mammals may start emerging at this point (at least enough to be detected) but the process that leads to those begins developing nearly from conception.

                    5. Soldiermedic76: That you were able to type that comment shows that your brain is considerably better developed than that of 20-week fetus. (Or any newborn baby, for that matter.)

              2. In fact the frontal lobe begins developing almost immediately after contraception and development continues until around age 25.

              3. I see you are another person who needs to go back and take biology again.

                1. Resorting to personal attacks implies decreasing confidence in your arguments.

                  1. No, I am fully confident in my argument. I have a MS in biological sciences, plus an associates in nursing. What I have is a full understanding that your argument is not even close to be scientifically valid and that your understanding of biology is severely lacking.

                  2. Resorting to personal attacks implies decreasing confidence in your arguments.

                    Noting that your arguments are based on fundamental topical ignorance implies only that your arguments are based on fundamental topical ignorance, which is a pretty important point when evaluating the validity of an argument.

                    1. An opinion piece.

                    2. And notice they didn't state that the development is limited to that time, just that it explodes during that time period. You didn't quite understand what the author was stating.

                    3. It would help if you understood developmental biology.

                    4. You really didn't understand that article now that I read it at length.

                    5. So you acknowledge that you couldn't even get the name of that part of the brain correct.

                    6. Also, note in that article that people with autism are suspected of having some sort of developmental issue during that period. As someone with high functioning Autism, does that mean you can kill me, as my brain development was altered during that period?

      2. ignores because refutable.

        1. A lot of laws are refutable.

          1. And for the most part, refutable laws are bad ideas.

      3. A fetus isn't a person and has no rights.

        No, that's the part of Roe that the Court didn't argue. That's what the entire "survivability" argument is designed to evade. Probably because what defines humanity is a question of metaphysics, rather than law and therefore better addressed at the ballot box than in the judicial system.

        1. Survivability is irrelevant. A baby is definitely a person once they achieve sentience. No real argument can be made against that.

          1. Rights are an invention, not a discovery. So should we grant a right to life to every living thing that we think has sentience?

            Since inventions are tools for our betterment, in every case we should ask whether granting a right is for our betterment, to our detriment, or neither.

            1. How about for every sentience that is a hominid to start with.

              1. If we find out that there are other hominids living, besides homo Sapiens, than they should have rights too.

            2. "Rights are an invention, not a discovery"

              This is about the most un-American thing one could say.

        2. There is no such thing as the metaphysical.

    3. If everyone has a right to Bodily Integrity, then you need to deal with the fact that in an abortion, a person deprives an unborn baby with its right to "Bodily Integrity".

      But once you accept that, then the arguments for abortion will, inevitably, lead straight to murder.

      1. And?

      2. But once you accept that, then the arguments for abortion will, inevitably, lead straight to murder.

        If only reality wasn't a bit more nuanced than that. Ponder for a moment why the words "homicide" and "murder" have very different meanings, both in every day usage an in their legal uses.

      3. "But once you accept that, then the arguments for abortion will, inevitably, lead straight to murder."

        Ok you caught me playing coy. As we can see in this entire thread, the argument inevitably, always, under every circumstance, no matter what, comes down to "When does the unborn baby get human rights."

        If the mom has an "unenumerated right" to bodily integrity, then everybody does- including her child. So Root asserting this unenumerated right means jack and shit, and jack just left town.

        Once we have determined where human rights begin, it is relatively easy to say "killing after this point" is murder. At that point it becomes a question of:

        1) Are there situations where the mother's rights override the baby's
        2) Are there pragmatic situations where certain laws will result in more harm than good? See, for example, Chemjeff's argument that maybe we don't want the state investigating every miscarriage.

    4. This comment adds no information. The debate is usually about when the rights of a person kick in. The idea that a microscopic set of cells is "in unborn baby with its right to "Bodily Integrity"" requiring government force to ensure gestation by the mother (to create an actual person) is a minority opinion.

    5. Depriving people of UN-Earned income!!!!
      How dare they... /s

    6. " If everyone has a right to Bodily Integrity, then you need to deal with the fact that in an abortion, a person deprives an unborn baby with its right to "Bodily Integrity"."

      Bingo, that's what pro-baby killers don't like to have pointed out.

      1. Where's my UN-Earned income?? How about those UN-Constitutional laws?

        It's actually rather humorous to hear people talk about "UN" anything as if it existed. How about the UN-made house or my UN-made car?

        Mythical creatures of delusions is all it is.....

  4. This is true, but how do you go about legally determining what those rights are?

    1. Leave them to the states for the subsidiary people to decide for themselves what those rights should be and enshrine them in their state constitutions.

      1. So, basically what the outcome of overturning Roe v. Wade will be.

      2. So if the states decide blacks have no right to not he slaves you'd be ok with that?

        1. You are the one arguing that rights are not a universal quality of being an individual human entity.

          1. Is a fetus an individual? It depends completely on the woman to keep it alive. It literally takes nourishment from her blood.

            1. And it does after being born, how do you think lactation works? And in most cases until they are 18 they are dependent upon the parents to provide nourishment. If we used that logic we could kill a 4 yo kid. Or a 6 month old nursing infant. Stupid take.

              1. Anyone can take care of a born child.

                1. For the most part, anyone can refuse to have sex. See how stupid your argument is?

                  1. Not if they're raped.

                    1. And I've answered that ad nauseam. The fact that you are still making that reference demonstrates an inability to adapt to new or differing information that runs contrary to your opinion.

                    2. So? There can still be no INITIATION OF FORCE against the baby.

                2. Even Joe Biden? You must be joking.

                3. Anyone can take care of a born child.

                  Which has precisely dick to do with the question of whether or not a fetus is a separate and distinct human life...which by every single generally accepted biological metric, it is.

                  1. How can it be separate when it's attached by the placenta?

                    1. Are conjoined twins who share vital organs a single or separate human beings?

                    2. How can it be separate when it's attached by the placenta?

                      The same way two people connected by blood transfusion apparatus are still separate and distinct human lives.

                      At this point I'm about 50/50 between the conclusions that you're trolling or that you're really as dumb as you're making yourself sound.

                    3. Also, wouldn't that argument nullify the mother being separate as well?

            2. It is a genetically distinct organism. It is not a part of a larger organism. It is an individual. By virtue of being human, it is presumed to have rights which a just sf society is bound to protect, just as every other human individual is protected.

              1. If genetic distinctness is the sole definition of what it means to be human, you'd better stop masturbating. That definition includes sperm. No cutting out that cancer tumor, either.

                You are right that you have certain rights at the point that you become an independent human. Your definition for that threshold, however, is as arbitrary as every other one being proposed in this debate.

                1. Sperm doesn't have unique DNA. Better take a biology class again.

                  1. "You know that sick heart transplant we did a few years back? Seems you'll just have to live with it till you die cause it's a baby!", says delusional Power-Mad dictators.

                2. A sperm is not a whole human. It is an argument made from a place of ignorance.

                  1. And it's not unique DNA. It's your DNA. Except in the rare case of a mutation.

                  2. A Pre Roe v Wade fetus is not a whole human..
                    Otherwise it could be removed.

                3. If genetic distinctness is the sole definition of what it means to be human, you'd better stop masturbating. That definition includes sperm. No cutting out that cancer tumor, either.

                  You are right that you have certain rights at the point that you become an independent human. Your definition for that threshold, however, is as arbitrary as every other one being proposed in this debate.

                  The profound fundamental biological ignorance required to make that comment makes your opinions on the subject of precisely zero value, and are not to be taken seriously.

                4. Consolidating rebuttals:

                  - A sperm is not a whole human. Since the very point we're trying to figure out is exactly what constitutes a "human", that's begging the question. Others can just as easily argue that a fetus is not (yet) a whole human.

                  - Sperm do not have unique DNA. By that logic, neither do any offspring since (absent mutations) they can only draw their genetic options from the parents.

                  Note also that "unique DNA" as a sole definition of "human" excludes twins.

                  1. Note also that "unique DNA" as a sole definition of "human"

                    Nobody cited "unique DNA" as the "sole definition" of human. So now you're being dishonest in addition to demonstrating basic subject matter ignorance.

                  2. Identical twins are a rarity in live births, and even then, they do not necessarily contain 100% the same DNA, because of SNP that can occur after the fetus splits. Even then, the difference between sperm, which is exactly your DNA, and identical twins are worlds apart.
                    You have 46 chromosomes (except in rare cases), 23 of these will be in your zygote (sperm or egg). It convinced with 23 chromosomes from your partners zygote and forms a genetically unique specimen(s). They are only 50% genetically related to you, however, your zygotes are 100% genetically related to you, as they received 100% of their genetic material from you.

                  3. Sperm is not a human being. It does not have the genetic makeup of a human being. It contains half the genetic material of a human being. And before you then start talking about stem cells, note that as an organism it cannot actualize to be a human being. It cannot under any condition, develop itself into a Human being, because it only contains half of the genetic information necessary.

                    No human was ever a skin cell. No human was ever a sperm cell or an egg. They- their complete genetic distinctiveness- only existed once there was a fertilized egg, complete with the genetic material, and supporting cellular infrastructure to actualize a fully functioning human body. From the point of fertilization on, that organism has the same capabilities you did at fertilization to attach to its mother, and utilize the resources provided to create a fully functioning human being.

                5. Hahahahahaha.

                  Goddamn man. I mean really.

                  1. Right... How many more "we have the science" to bring out the Gov-Guns [WE] mobs do we need???

              2. A fetus exchanges nourishment and waste with the woman's blood so it is part of a larger system.

                1. So does a nursing infant. Except the waste part.

            3. Coma patients also require others to intervene. Kill all of them off too? What about an accident victim bleeding out? I can kill them arbitrarily?

              1. People pull the plug on coma patients all the time. That one woman they stopped feeding her.

                1. So is pulling the plug killing someone or not?

                  1. No... Never has been. It has always been a FAMILY decision.

                2. Fine. Can a mother leave a 5 year old baby in the wild with no repercussions?

                  1. 5 day old *

                    Can it throw it in a trash can?

                    1. Yep. Left in the State's hands they can.
                      That's a pretty good idea; You want to save all the unwanted fetuses; how about they give them all to you.

                3. Also who decides the patient dies? Can I unplug the machines to charge my phone? Is that murder?

                  1. A *Personal* Will or in the event there is no will the FAMILY decides. That's the way it should be; not some dictator thousands of miles away.

            4. Is your invalid grandmother, who depends completely on nurses to keep her alive, an individual?

              Or what about people who need blood transfusions from others?

              A fetus is an individual at a very early stage of development. If you want to make the case for when a mother's rights outweigh the baby's rights, you'll need a more persuasive argument.

              1. The woman owns her uterus and forcing her to use it is slavery.

                1. Except in rape, no one forced her to use her uterus, her pregnancy is the direct result of her choice.

                2. Is it also slavery to force a woman's digestive tract to absorb the fat and sugar from a tub of ice cream?

                  The natural progression of biological functions isn't slavery.

                  1. I know, it’s such a ridiculous argument. So of of course it comes from the left.

              2. Individual -- 3 : existing as a distinct entity : separate
                Funny; Seems abortion is the only thing that makes an Individual out of that thing ur trying to save...

            5. Yes. So is a one day old baby.

        2. So if the states decide blacks have no right to not he slaves you'd be ok with that?

          If only there weren't some text in the U.S. Constitution preventing that....

          1. I'm ok, you're ok is emotional, immature and irrelevant twaddle. If States want to pass that kind of law then they must get the 13th Amendment repealed and then the 10th comes back into play.

          2. Read it again. Slavery is still legal in this country.

            1. Only in the case of punishment for crime. And even that has been mostly ruled illegal.

              1. And is further curtailed under unusual punishments. You can't buy a prisoner. And if you employ one, through a contract, you have to compensate them for their time.

                1. ...Except of course; Pregnant women..
                  They get the Pro-Life [WE] mob trying to enslave them..

        3. So if the states decide blacks have no right to not he slaves you'd be ok with that?

          You just write into the law that black people aren't humans and then it's legal. Only humans have inalienable rights, you see.

          1. Note: The above is not an endorsement of the stated notion.

        4. What if a state decides that only blacks can have abortions?

          Or that blacks get first dibs on medical care?

          Or maybe, it's settled that the color of one's skin should always be legally irrelevant when it comes to deciding your rights.

          How we navigate deciding how to balance the competing rights of a mother and their unborn child is a completely different question. This isn't thrown back to the states to allow carte blanche, it's thrown back to the states because the competing interests here simply aren't settled.

          1. A fetus isn't legally a person and has no rights.

            1. That's a wonderful opinion you have there. Do you agree that in the case of American jurisprudence, the ultimate arbiters are the SCOTUS?

            2. Says who?

              1. The magic baby canal fairy.

            3. They are, and they do.

      3. If they're in the state constitution, what does that have to do with the construal of the enumeration of rights in the US constitution? Or is the 9th amendment just useless words, as some said at the time of its proposal and adoption?

      4. EVERYONE'S pregnancy is property of the State in which they live! /s

    2. Also, pass constitutional amendments enshrining them as constitutional rights. It has been done.

      I go with my prior comment in believing these things should be decided at the state level first and when 2/3 of the states are in agreement, making it a federal constitutional right.

      1. Already done... 13th Amendment..

        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.

        If y'all want to pretend it's but an individual - then banning abortion puts the 13th Amendment on the table.

  5. Abortion is simply a question of property rights. Who owns the uterus? Obviously it's the woman and a fetus has no more right to its use than I have to one of your kidneys.

    1. I have no use for my uterus except to house fertilized eggs. It’s my eggs’ uterus.

      1. But a fertilized egg is a separate person from you and they have no right to its use.

        1. They reside there because you invited them in.

          1. What about rape?

            1. Few have a problem with abortion in the case of rape.

              It just needs to be proven rape and not a next day regret.

              1. If abortion for rape isn't murder it's never murder.

                1. The number of abortions for rape are so small, bringing it up is a distraction meant to make the argument for a much broader (and far more common) practice. In fact, studies show the vast majority of rape victims do not opt for abortions.

                  1. It doesn't matter if it's one. If you make an exception for rape it's never murder.

                    1. Wrong. We make exceptions to murder all the time. Look at self defense laws, they are nothing but exceptions to murder laws.

                    2. You're conflating murder and homocide.

                    3. As are you.

                  2. "The number of abortions for rape are so small, bringing it up is a distraction meant to make the argument for a much broader (and far more common) practice."

                    What about the need for abortion in the FAR more common case of "theft of reproductive capacity by deception"?

                    Well, a lot of pro-lifers are men, and I would bet that even those pro-lifers who are women? Very few of them have found themselves in the following shoes: Lothario endlessly says “Love ya, babe, Love-ya- Love-ya- Love-ya, NOW can I get down your pants?” After she falls for him and he gets her pregnant, the abuse (from him) begins, and she finds out that he has 7 other “Love-ya” babes on the side, 4 of them also pregnant by him! So as I have said before, abortion is “veto power” against scum-bucket men. If these behavioral genes get passed on and on, humans will evolve into something like elephant seals, where the men most skilled at lying, and fighting off the other men, get a harem of 40 babes, and the rest of the men get nothing! So abortion is empowering women to fight off this sort of thing… And reserve their baby-making powers for men who are less lying scum, and will actually make good fathers to the children.

                    So, they want to “capitally punish” the “offenders”, while they have never been in the above-described shoes! Self-righteousness, basically…

                    Or maybe some of the anti-abortion men fantasize and lust after being the elephant-seal-like men who can gather the baby-making powers of a harem of 40 lied-to women, under the new scheme of things?

                    I am glad that SOME you oppose theft. Theft by deception is also theft; I hope you can see that! When a severely lying Lothario-type dude (as described above) appropriates the baby-making powers of a deceived young woman, that, too, is theft! Abortion is anti-theft, when a deceived woman no longer wants to rent out her womb to a deceptive scumbag, prospective god-awful supposed "father"!

                    Those who are anti-abortion unmarried men should be out there desperately courting women who have already been deceived by scumbucket men, and volunteering to raise these unborn children (who are NOT their biological offspring), to fend off a HUGE root cause of abortion, and to put their money where their mouth is! And married anti-abortion men? Check with your wives; see if they mind you donating all your spare time and money to helping out these future unmarried moms!

                2. Yup. Self-defense and all never occur in the world.

                  Woman was assaulted and FORCED to accept sperm she did not wish to take.

                3. If shooting someone in self defense isn't murder shooting someone is never murder.

                  1. No murder is initiating force. Self defense is retaliating with force.

                    1. No, self defense is justifiable murder. It's still murder, it's just justified. As you stated above it's the difference between murder and homicide.

                    2. Sorry, I swapped murder and homicide.

                    3. Getting an abortion doesn't initiate anything?

                    4. Inviting someone over to your house, tying them to the post in your basement and then sucking their brain out of their head through a hole would be considered murder, yes?

          2. There is no invitation. You can't invite a nonexistent entity.

            1. A mother by her and her partner's actions put that child in her belly. It wasn't an invitation, but rather an affirmative action that put the child there. If you smack a person over the head and drag them into your house, chained to your bed, you don't get to suddenly claim your property rights allow you to kill them. It was your action that put them in that place, and if you want them gone, it is your responsibility to ensure that they leave safely.

              1. So you want to take away the "veto power" of abortion, which is currently at least SOMEWHAT available to women who have been LIED TO, by Lying Lothario? You take the side of Lying Lothario?

                ... The below is a partial repeat of a long post further above, at SQRLSY One
                May.3.2022 at 5:24 pm

                Lothario endlessly says “Love ya, babe, Love-ya- Love-ya- Love-ya, NOW can I get down your pants?” After she falls for him and he gets her pregnant, the abuse (from him) begins, and she finds out that he has 7 other “Love-ya” babes on the side, 4 of them also pregnant by him! So as I have said before, abortion is “veto power” against scum-bucket men. If these behavioral genes get passed on and on, humans will evolve into something like elephant seals, where the men most skilled at lying, and fighting off the other men, get a harem of 40 babes, and the rest of the men get nothing! So abortion is empowering women to fight off this sort of thing… And reserve their baby-making powers for men who are less lying scum, and will actually make good fathers to the children.

          3. Why do people always go to the most extreme case when it is such a miniscule part of the discussion?

          4. They reside there because you invited them in.

            Not 'invited'. FORCED.

        2. Squatters rights.

          1. Tresspassing is illegal.

            1. It's not trespass if you invited them in.

              1. What about rape?

                1. I've already answered rape multiple times and why it's a stupid argument.

                2. You think women "invite them in" with rape?

                  Not sure what your argument here is, but it's not working too well.

              2. An invitation can be withdrawn at any time.

                1. Actually that isn't true. If it is a blizzard outside and I kick you out of my house and you are injured, in most states I can be charged with multiple crimes.

                  1. That's such a rare occurrence that it is irrelevant to the discussion.

                    1. You are being snarky but you actually are proving my point about the absurdity of arguing for a blanket topic based upon a rare occurrence.

                2. An invitation can be withdrawn at any time.

                  Congratulations on winning today's "Braindead Exercise in Silly Semantics" award.

          2. It's not squatting. Your actions, except in very rare circumstances, resulted in them residing there.

            1. So if you forget to lock your door and an intruder enters your home, he's not squatting? Your actions resulted in them residing there.

              1. Stupid analogy. You didn't forget not to have sex, you intended to have sex and got pregnant. It's like inviting a known thief into your house and then being surprised when he steals your checkbook.

                1. What if you intentionally didn't lock your door?

                  1. It's still not a good analogy. Because you invited the person you are having consensual sex in. They didn't sneak in.

                    1. But what does that have to do with the fetus? The fetus wasn't invited in, because it didn't exist during the act.

                    2. It was invited in, as it is the reason sex exists from a biological standpoint. The fact that we have utilized sex for other means than just procreation does not change the underlying point of sex, biologically speaking, is for procreation, and that as a result of having sex, procreation, for those in the child bearing years, you always run the risk of pregnancy. Thus if you have consensual sex, and you become pregnant, you did invite them in.

                    3. The fetus was forced into existence. It had no say in the matter.

                2. It's not even inviting, it's forcing.
                  The baby/fetus didn't choose to enter, it was created and placed there by the woman

              2. Your actions resulted in them residing there.

                No, his actions resulted in it being easier than it otherwise would have been for them to reside there. It did not force them to enter and take up residence, nor was it even an invitation.

                Honestly, you're arguing on a 3rd grade level here...and I'm probably being generous in that assessment.

        3. This has nothing to do with property rights. What a disturbing, bizarre notion.

    2. That's the stupidest analysis I have ever heard.

      1. A woman doesn't own her uterus?

        1. Pretty sure the 13A bans any person from owning another. That's why it's a stupid analysis.

          1. The 13th actually allows slavery as a punishment for crimes. I also didn't say the woman owns the fetus Ibsaid she owns the uterus and the fetus has no right to its use.

            1. The fetus did not move in. It was created and placed there thru no fault of its own.

              1. And if the woman was raped or the contraception failed it was no fault of the woman.

                1. If the contraceptive failed, she still chose to have sex, and the risk is known that contraceptives are not 100% (that argument fails). Also, the rape argument is a pure distraction as so few abortions are the result of rape, and most rape victims do not choose to abort their babies. That's like justifying assault weapons bans because a few individuals use assault weapons in mass shootings. It's the same stupid logic.

                  1. If abortion for rape isn't murder it's never murder.

                    1. Somewhat correct. It's murder but not homicide. The same as killing someone who is raping you is murder, but it's justified murder and thus not homicide.

                    2. Actually got that backwards. Killing a fetus from rape would be homicide not murder. For clarification. Murder is illegal, homicide involves killing someone rather legal or not.

                    3. No, killing a rape-baby is still murder. The baby didn't initiate force, it did exactly what babies do. From a principled, libertarian, standpoint if the baby did not initiate force, the mother cannot retaliate by killing it.

                2. Contraception failure is you taking a risk and it not working out for you. No different than if you skydive and your parachute failed to deploy. It sucks, but risks are called risks for a reason.

                  Rape would fall under self-defense.

            2. It allows slavery to the state, which isn’t really the same thing as me owning you.

    3. If not for two years of "Take the shot or lose your job" nonsense, I'd be a tad more sympathetic to your views.

      1. ^ This.

    4. "...a fetus has no more right to its use than I have to one of your kidneys."

      Then don't put it there.

        1. Nobody raped you. Quit complaining.

          1. Women get pregnant from rape.

            1. But rape is rare. And abortions related to rape are even more rare. Using the rape argument is like arguing for an assault weapons ban because a few individuals used assault rifle for mass shootings.

              1. It's all relative. Abortions can also be considered rare. Arguing categorical distinctions based on frequency of occurrence is faulty logic.

                1. Abortion is far more common than rape. So far you haven't made a substantiative argument as to why abortion should be legal. And it isn't faulty logic. As I pointed out in the assault weapons ban, which is also rare. Making a broad based argument, all abortion should be legal because of a rare event, is faulty logic. All assault weapons should be banned because one person went on a killing spree is the same form of fault logic.

                  1. I think they're actually missing the best argument they can make - it's not "should abortion be legal", but rather, "how will you criminalize and punish abortion"?

                    You can, for example, argue that the morning after pill (or other self-administered abortifacient) effectively moots any sort of criminalization because they would be indistinguishable from miscarriage.

                    Or, you could argue that while it is the ending of a life, because of the fragility of that life it would be a lesser charge than murder or even involuntary manslaughter - something that could be punished by a fine instead of prison, for example.

                    The devil, as they say, is in the details. The one Clinton thing I ever agreed with was, "safe, legal, and rare", which is really what government should always be. However, when leftists insist on pushing it so far that infanticide is practically legal, they're going to get pushback.

                    Hopefully, some states will figure it out better than others, and we'll be able to recognize the best way to support the birth of black babies that would otherwise be killed by the abortion industry.

                  2. Do you support abortion is cases of rape?

                    1. I'm not certain. It's a very philosophical question. But I could see the reason to have an exception, however, while I find abortion repugnant I do actually support the right to an abortion within the first trimester. I believe three to four months is adequate time to make an informed decision and arguments for it past the 15th or 16th week are extremely weak both morally and scientifically.

                    2. Like I have stated abortion is balancing two individuals rights against each other. And as thus, its probably better to compromise than to go one way or the other.

                    3. Do you support general argumentation without resorting to extremely rare events?

                      I can ask you if there is a duty for a mother to take care of a 1 day year or old, or can she toss it in the garbage? That is thr same extreme example on reverse for abortion.

                    4. I'd agree with Soldiermedic here.

                      At case are 3 questions:

                      1) Categorical: When does a fetus get human rights
                      2) Moral: When do a mother's rights override the unborn babies (e.g. Rape, life of the mother)
                      3) Legal: How will we enforce this morality

                      From a categorical perspective, I cannot find a single argument other than "A fertilized egg is a human, with human rights." Every other attempt do define these franchises tends to boil down to arguments of convenience (when is the mom ok with it) or some arbitrary mechanism (whenever some scientist creates artificial womb technology, then you get rights).

                      From a libertarian moral standpoint, there are very few reasons killing a person with human rights would be morally acceptable, and that includes rape. Killing the unborn child is initiating force against that child. To say that it is retaliatory would mean I have the right to kill Soldiermedic just because some mugger led-sapped him and dumped him unconscious on my property. It isn't my fault he is there, but unfortunately it isn't his fault either. On the other hand, when the Baby poses a threat to the mother's life, we have a different situation. In that case, the mother's rights are just as important, and it is up to her to decide how things will go.

                      Finally, what are we to legally do about this. Because pragmatically it is nearly impossible to control early stage pregnancy, a reasonable limit of early abortion is not MORAL, but it is workable and practicable. If it were up for debate in my locality, I would probably argue for somewhat sooner, but that is up to each locality. *shrug*

            2. So?

    5. Obviously it's the woman and a fetus has no more right to its use than I have to one of your kidneys.

      That's a braindead characterization of a pregnancy. It's like kidnapping someone, locking them in your basement so they can't escape and then declaring that they have no right to the use of your food, water, living space, etc.

      1. Bad analogy. The fetus is not kept prisoner in the womb, it is being asked to leave.

        1. It's not being asked it's being forced. Try forcing someone out of your house in the middle of a blizzard or hurricane and see what happens.

          1. I just searched for this and can't find anything. Do you have a citation or did you just make that up?

            1. Actually, there are several laws in several states, making it illegal to evict people or shut off their power in the winter and they carry several penalties. If I force you out of my house, in the middle of a blizzard, and you die, I can be charged with involuntary manslaughter in several states, because my actions were depraved and in such a manner that I put your life at undo risk.

              1. That's not the same thing as you claimed and also you still haven't provided an actual citation. Forceful eviction is not performed by the landlord, so I don't see how a manslaughter charge could ever be brought against the landlord.

                1. Yes it is. If you force your guest out of your house in the middle of a blizzard and they die, you can be charged with negligent homicide. So yes it is the same. Their death resulted as a direct consequence of your depraved act.

                  1. Citation?

                    1. Try it. And see what happens.

                    2. You can disbelieve me, and try it.

        2. Bad analogy. The fetus is not kept prisoner in the womb, it is being asked to leave.

          At this point one can only hope you're trolling, because the alternative is that you spent your entire childhood snacking on lead paint chips.

          1. The whole premise is ridiculous.

        3. "it is being asked to leave"

          Oh, when you ask people to leave your house, is it your common practice to impale them through the skull and vacuum out their brains, or chop their head off?

    6. Who owns your digestive tract?

      What right does your food have to being digested and turned into fat cells in your digestive tract? Especially if you've been force fed, or deceived as to the fat-freeness of a yogurt?

      There are natural biological processes, and our assertion of private property rights cannot possibly affect them. Yogurt has no right to use your small intestine to be absorbed into your body, but if you swallow that spoonful, the natural outcome will be absorption.

      Your rights give you no recourse to change the laws of physics.

  6. So what is the standard for evaluating which unenumerated rights the Constitution protects and how does a largely unconstrained right to abortion satisfy that standard?

    There has to be a reasoned argument for it, other than a mere assertion.

    1. The Constitution protects all unenumerated rights. Abortion is a question of property rights and I'm sure you agree the Constitution protects property rights.

      1. Again, what makes for an unenumerated right and why does abortion qualify as one aside from you yelling "I wants it so!"?

        1. Abortion is a question of property rights.

          1. Government employees lost jobs for not taking a drug the government insisted they take.

            So, tell me more about you owning your body.

            1. Exactly. Thank you for supporting my position.

              1. ...except them losing their jobs was upheld by courts.

                So, CLEARLY, bodily autonomy is NOT an enumerated right.

                1. But we as libertarians don't agree with that. You can't claim as a libertarian the right to refuse the jab and also claim a woman has no right to an abortion.

                  1. Yes you can, as you have another person's rights in play also, the rights of the infant. Your rights end right where they cause pain, suffering or death on another person.

                  2. Does this right to bodily autonomy exist for the fetus? There's the woman's right to bodily autonomy, but also the implications of the NAP on the fetus and the fetus' own bodily autonomy.

      2. Abortion is a question of property rights

        Only if you have the IQ of a turnip.

        1. The uterus belongs to the fetus?

          1. No, the property rights argument is solely lacking, and rather puerile and spacious.

          2. The uterus belongs to the fetus?

            So we're back to, "Yes, you really are as stupid as you're making yourself sound."

      3. Is the SCOTUS the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of our laws?

        Or is your opinion on constitutionality the ultimate arbiter?

    2. Given the "right to bodily integrity" includes the right to refuse medical treatment, that does not seem like an argument that the Left will embrace wholeheartedly after what they have pushing as health policy over the past two plus years.

      1. This is why I hate them.

      2. The difference, which you omitted, is that COVID-19 can spread contagiously through respiration.

        Also, it is not only the blue states that have had mask mandates. Or exclusively leftists who have argued for vaccination mandates.

        1. And yet, the vaccine didn’t actually stop the spread you mendacious fuckstick.

  7. "The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions."

    That's true.

    Abortion isn't one of them.

  8. >>at least one big way in which the unenumerated right at issue in Dobbs may very well fall into this category

    the right to not be aborted.

  9. Meanwhile, over to the lawyers at Volokh:

    I've Finished Reading The Apparent Dobbs Draft Opinion
    The penultimate paragraph of Part IV provides the course of action going forward.


    After my spate of blog posts from Monday evening (1, 2, 3, 4), I took the time to read the apparent Dobbs draft opinion. It is a tour de force. Justice Alito meticulously dissects, and forcefully responds to, every conceivable position in favor of retaining Roe and Casey. I could teach an entire law school seminar class on this opinion. It touches on nearly every facet of constitutional law. Moreover, the opinion carefully addresses the concerns of other members of the majority. Alito cites Justice Gorsuch's book. Alito discusses safe harbor laws, which seemed important to Justice Barrett. Alito repeatedly cites Justice Kavanaugh's Ramos concurrence, and calls on returning the issue to the democratic process. This is an opinion designed to hold five, as the saying goes.

    1. The democratic process shouldn't be allowed to violate human rights.

      1. What about the rights of the infant? Any argument about why it is okay to kill a fetus can be equally applied to an infant after it is born.

        1. A fetus isn't legally a person and has no rights. Even if it did it wouldn't have any right to force a woman to use her body to support it.

          1. Says who?

            1. SCOTUS.

              1. What makes them legally a person?

                1. Being born.

                  1. That has never been ruled by the courts, nor does the 14A as you state down thread, make that determination either.

                  2. That has never been ruled by the courts, nor does the 14A as you state down thread, make that determination neither.

              2. When? That wasn't part of the roe decision. It never stated or ruled on the personhood or rights of the infant.

                1. Yes it does. It says for the purposes of the 14th amendment a fetus is not a person.

                  1. No it doesn't, it sets what is considered a citizen, not rather you have to be born to have rights.

                  2. And it doesn't deny rights to non-citizens just states citizens cannot be denied rights. Nor does it restrict citizenship solely to those born in the US. Further the last line of the first clause states that no person residing within the boundaries of the state can be denied the rights of life, liberty or property (as opposed to citizens). It does not define what or who are considered people.

                    1. You're confused. The decision in Roe was based on the equal protection clause. The court said that doesn't apply to a fetus because they aren't persons.

                    2. No they didn't. You are confused. They didn't mention the fetus, if it had rights or not.

                    3. The equal protection part was used to apply a right to privacy and was not used to deny rights to the fetus/infant. The courts also stated that these rights were also balanced against the interest of the state to insure the health and safety of the mother, and that the right was not absolute. They didn't mention the fetus at all.

                    4. And even if Roe did state that (which it didn't) and this draft is correct, than Roe is about to be overturned so it no longer matters. Unless you believe that the courts can't overturn previous decisions, in which case Scott and Plethy V Ferguson would still be the law of the land.

          2. "Even if it did it wouldn't have any right to force a woman to use her body to support it."

            Explain to me in libertarian terms how it is that a mother isn't being "forced to use her body" to support an infant after it is born.

            If that mother doesn't care for that baby in some way, she will be charged with neglect and even murder if the baby dies. So clearly the state is forcing her to use her body to care for it- the fact that she has different options doesn't change the fact that if she doesn't use one of those actions, she is STILL punished. So how is that not force?

            1. A fetus survives by living off the nourishment provided by the woman's body. It's a parasite. Once a baby is born anyone can take care of it.

              1. It's not a parasite, by definition it is a symbiotic lifeform. And as I've pointed out, so do nursing babies. This is a puerile argument that you've made multiple times and continues to be just as sophomoric now as every other time you've made it.

              2. Hahahaha.

                I’m actually surprised it took you this long to call it a parasite.

      2. I'm a human. I'm a male. Regardless of what the left thinks, I cannot nor will I ever become pregnant. How can abortion be a human right if I, as a human, am forever precluded from partaking in it?

        1. The same reason being able to enjoy mutually consensual sex is a human right.

          1. Um, small clarification.

            If nobody is willing to consent with you, you don't get to have the sex. That's pretty basic.

            You're allowed to *pursue* the enjoyment of mutually consensual sex, but nobody gets a guarantee of it.

            1. What part of mutually consensual did you not understand? And I am sorry the joke went over your head.

              1. Okay, so with /sarc tags added, you agree with Macaulay McToken that abortion cannot be a human right, since what you really intended to say was "mutually consensual sex is a privilege one can engage in if you can find a consenting partner".

                Oftentimes we see the use of the word "right" mean quite different things. Positive rights impose a burden on others to provide you with something, negative rights impose limits on others to not do something to you. So, the "positive" right of enjoyable consensual sex is distinctly different than the "negative" right of not being raped, since the positive right is conditional, and the negative right is absolute.

          2. Is it? A right which is contingent on someone else saying "yes" doesn't seem like much of a "right" to me.

          3. Biologically speaking, the purpose of sex is always procreation. It doesn't always result in procreating but that's it's function. Eating can be for enjoyment, but the biological purpose of eating is to take in nutrients. Just because you label it recreational doesn't change the underlying purpose from a biology standpoint.

            1. ^ This

      3. Abortion is as much a human right as anything Jeffrey Dhamer pulled.

      4. The democratic process shouldn't be allowed to violate human rights.

        *Looks around*

        Uh, this would be the judicial process, not the democratic one. None of these people were popularly elected to their position.

      5. Exactly. And murdering a baby is one of the most inhuman things the
        At the democratic process could do.

  10. At the risk of beating a dead horse, notice this is the third story today referencing this, and the news isn't even 24 hours old. It took Reason 48 hours to write about the ministry of truth and they ran a total of two stories, one of which wasn't written until the Friday afternoon story dump.

    1. That stood out to me, too. I guess some rights are more important to Reason Editors than others.

    2. At their core, the Reason staff seeks to be slaves in a democrat totalitarian state.

    3. to be fair, I find this to be a HUGELY more important and impactful story than the Ministry of Truth. No comparison. At all.

      (And I do thing the MoT story was dreadful).

      1. Good point! The Ministry of Truth dragging us away for "Wrong-Speak" is a LOT less likely to come about, than the "Womb Police" starting to collectively rent-control (with "no evictions allowed" notices) the wombs of all of the nubile young women! Abortions outlawed is a "pro-Lying-Lothario" measure, intended to turn humans into elephant seals! He who lies the BEST, and deceives the MOST women, into getting pregnant, WINS the genetic lottery! Meek and mild, honest men who would make good fathers? Well, WHO CARES about THEM?!?!

      2. Agree to disagree. Most people will never get an abortion (even most pro abortion advocates would not personally get an abortion, as they find the act morally repugnant), free speech and control by the government impacts everyone. The MoT, if allowed to stand, also has more long term risks.

  11. If there was a "deeply rooted" right to bodily integrity, you would expect that right to have long-since come up in cases other than abortion. Bodily integrity would, for example, have come up in cases involving vaccinations yet that doesn't appear anywhere in Jacobson v Mass (nor any other case I can easily find).

    You might also reasonably expect a right to bodily integrity to come up in articles about tattooing, piercing or other body modifications but again nothing.

    I will agree that there should be a right to bodily integrity. I just don't see that current precedents support that argument.

    1. It is telling that many who make the bodily autonomy argument for rape argued the exact opposite in regards to COVID vaccine.

  12. Unless the author is going to argue that abortion should be 100% at any point in pregnancy-- a position few except the extreme left advocate for-- then I'm not understanding his argument.

    I don't know Damon's views personally, but I'd be willing to bet that he feels restricting abortion before X date violates someone's right to bodily integrity, while restricting it after X date is perfectly justifiable. A violation is a violation, no matter when and where it occurs. Yet, it seems, that many people who trot out the "bodily integrity" line are perfectly willing to violate such so called integrity at the point where abortion no longer becomes palatable to them.

  13. the right to terminate a pregnancy may be justly seen as a subset of the right to bodily integrity

    Sure, it could be seen that long as you're sufficiently simple-minded and prone to ignoring a great many of the most fundamental facts involved, including the fact that there is more than one body involved.

  14. One of the things that is different than 1973, is that biological sciences has comes leaps and bounds from that point in time. We understand far more about fetal development than we did then. As a result, almost any argument as to why a fetus isn't a separate life has mostly become moot. If you draw a certain line, I as someone with a MS in biological sciences can show you why that argument isn't persuasive (e.g. because that development either starts much earlier, or that that development continues far after birth, as in the development of the prefrontal cortex, which we now understand doesn't actually finish maturation and development until your mid 20s). So, from a strictly scientific basis, it's hard to argue that you aren't killing a separate human being. So the debate now focuses on morality. And as I see it, you have two conflicting rights, the rights of the mother and the infant. So it becomes an argument about how do we balance those rights?

    1. I'll slightly push back and assert that while the morality of the competing rights is part of the equation, there's also the more pressing issue of how to legislate a compromise between the two competing interests.

      That is to say, balancing those rights in a moral sense may be an easy question to answer, but legislating a balance feels much more fraught.

      We'll likely have some pretty crazy blue states that still go for killing a baby up to birth, and we might have some pretty crazy red states that start criminalizing the use of the morning after pill. Most will likely end up in between, ebbing and flowing depending on the cultural mood at the time. One can only hope that eventually a culture of chastity and self-worth makes the question mostly moot.

      1. legislating a balance feels much more fraught

        That is the road down which Michael Hihn ventured and lost his mind. There is no need to weigh competing rights. The pregnant woman has all the power and it is denying reality to pretend she doesn't get to make the decision. It is folly to think that legislation and punishment are going to change every outcome.

        1. No but the same argument can be made for any law. Punishment does not prevent murders, but it likely curtails them to some degree.

        2. I agree that a compromise is the best alternative when dealing with conflicting rights and the states, as opposed to the federal government are better suited to make these compromises.

        3. The logically consistent opinion:
          Neither federal nor state government has jurisdiction over the inside of a woman's body, thus the fetus/baby falls outside its jurisdiction.
          Federal and state governments do have jurisdiction over certain actions, thus it can certainly criminalize a third party, an abortion provider in this case, committing homicide through either surgery or drugs marketed for the purpose of inducing miscarriage (the Plan B pill could however remain legal by simply marketing it for another purpose acknowledging that a "side effect" is induced miscarriage).
          Nobody has the right to commit homicide for hire. If a woman wants an abortion she can do it herself.

        4. A teenager at home has all the power in the world to go down to the kitchen while their parents are sleeping, grab a knife, and kill her parents in their sleep. It's denying reality to pretend she doesn't get to make that decision.

          We tend to develop systems that disincentivize that kind of behavior.

          The question ends up being, "what's the best system for disincentivizing killing unborn babies?" Not all systems will work as well as others. And even though not every outcome will be changed, the goal is to minimize harm, not eliminate it.

      2. "One can only hope that eventually a culture of chastity and self-worth makes the question mostly moot."

        That won't be feasible so long as there is the double standard of encouraging boys to go out and get laid while telling girls that their only worth is in their 'purity' -- which is a social construct anyway. A culture of chastity puts the onus on girls to 'behave' and that they are inherently evil temptresses. Never mind that they are physically weaker then men, that they have to watch out where they walk, who they talk to, how they dress, how they smile or not smile -- and then they have to argue that they really weren't asking for it. In a culture of chastity, men are given a pass to 'prove their manhood', to be weak because she was showing too much leg. To take what they want anytime they want because she said yes one time, or to someone else. To shame women for wanting to sleep with more than one man, or outside of wedlock, though it's encouraged for men to do so.

        Also, using the argument about 'crazy blue states' killing babies up to birth implies that women in states that have pro-choice laws right now already want to do that. It implies that women will cheer at the chance to get pregnant, carry a healthy baby right up to the first contraction, then happily kill it because the law says they can. Show me where that happens on the regular. If you want to argue that if an anti-abortion law prevents one crazy lady from doing that it's a good thing, I'll say ban all guns if it stops one crazy person from shooting and killing someone. Then I'll listen to people howling at false equivalences and attacking amendment 2.

        1. "That won't be feasible so long as there is the double standard of encouraging boys to go out and get laid while telling girls that their only worth is in their 'purity'"

          You're literally psychotic, living in pure fantasy that hasn't been the case in at least 20 years.

        2. You can say whatever the fuck you want, but you're too much of a pathologically dishonest can't to admit you favor homicide in some cases but not in others.
          May you meet a just end soon.

          1. *cunt, not can't

            1. But it's okay for you to call me a cunt and wish me dead and I'm the psychotic one? You proved my point.

              1. What point, that Nardz is an asshole at times? Because his using a naughty word does not prove any of your other points.

                1. A woman can't even make a public comment without being told to die.

                  Anyway, side note, I respect soldiers, and medics. Both are tough jobs. Thank you for your service.

                  1. He tells everyone to die. Sex has nothing to do with it. He's told me to die. And I am fully male last time I checked.

                  2. Leftists are literally cancer, and your perception of reality is wildly inaccurate.
                    You're here lobbying for the deaths of innocents; I merely advocate you, a threat to innocents who has no value to decent people, get what you deserve.

        3. Your second paragraph is laughable. I don't know any parent that actually teaches their boys that, nor does society. However, human nature dictates those standards. It's instinctive for males to want to spread their seed around, because that insures they have the most progeny possible. For a female, it is beneficial to keep a mate around, as it increases the survivability of her offspring. It's evolution you are arguing against.

          As to your third paragraph, if some states do keep it legal, it's still legal (and outside the norm of most of the developed world) so even if it is rare, it's still possible.

        4. Evolutionary sexual strategies have deep biological roots - it's not an arbitrary social construct, it's an evolved one.

          In a culture of chastity and self-worth, women act in ways that encourage deep investment in monogamy, rather than encouraging "sow-and-go" one-night stands. It's not about restricting what women can do, it's helping women encourage the more collaborative mating strategy of monogamy, rather than the antagonistic "love 'em and leave 'em" strategy.

          The vast majority of women will feel worse if they behave like the most irresponsible men in the world. Encouraging women to sleep around, as a general rule, is bad for women, and great for men who don't want to commit.

  15. What Damon Root gets wrong.

    To the extent the Ninth Amendment makes reference to federal judicially enforceable rights, which is questionable -- such enforcement would have ONLY been against the federal government! Obviously. Same as the rest of the bill of rights.

    And to suggest that Robert Bork did not view the enumerated federal government powers as limited and specified is just laughable. What a joke of an article this is.

  16. It's not clear to me the supreme court is wrong as a matter of law here.

    -There is no federal ban on abortion. AFAIK, the 9th amendment has never been incorporated against the states. So arguably the federal government cannot ban abortion under the 9th, but that doesn't prohibit the states.

    -The 10th amendment leaves powers not mentioned in the Constitution to the states or the people. As abortion is not mentioned, governance devolves to the states.

    I mean, as policy I think banning abortion is a mistake. But barring a SCOTUS decision that both recognizes a right to bodily integrity broadly (hahahahaha), that centers that right in the 9th amendment, and that incorporates the 9th against the states, I can't see a constitutional argument for the states being required to recognize it as a right (even if I believe they should do so). Let the laboratories of democracy decide.

    Probably more relevantly in an age of abortion-by-pill and e-commerce, I will note the states have no power to regulate the mail, nor should they have power to limit commerce with other states. (The whole point of the commerce clause was to stop the states from interfering in the free flow of goods between states). So if even one state retains legal access to abortion pills, it would be both impossible and unconstitutional for states to stop interstate commerce in abortion pills.

    1. California says otherwise.

      1. California is welcome to believe what ever fool thing they want. Hopefully the courts will give them the smack down they deserve.

        (Also, they might not like it so much when it interferes with their preferred policies.)

    2. I can agree with you on the second part, abortion pills, on the first part, I think since we have conflicting rights, bodily autonomy vs right to life, a compromise is better than one way or the other.

  17. The basis of Roe is absurd. Finding a right to abortion hidden in right privacy raises question about other medical procedures. Governments at all levels in the US regulate many, perhaps most, medical procedures, ho may do them, where, can they be performed at all. You can donate a kidney to a family member, but you can't donate one to your best friend.
    Roe has always be a shit decision. It is a right created a a single, logically inconsistent, exception to the clear understanding of the constitution on a broader basis.
    You can believe that ALL of your body belongs to you. You can believe that the fetus is not a child until birth. But protection for abortion in the constitution in a consistent way requires that you apply the reasoning more broadly. Making it a unique carve-out right is BS.

    1. I believe you can donate to a friend or complete stranger but you can't get compensated for it. Which is the bullshit part.

    2. generally illegal to commit suicide.
      Prostitution also illegal.

  18. Mr. Root is correct to point out that the Constitution needn't grant a particular right for citizens to be presumed to have it.

    But the Constitution is also an agreement between states, and was set up with limited powers delegated from the states to the central government. Definitions of criminal law were left to the state, with a handful of exceptions such as treason, piracy and counterfeiting. Meaning that individual states may reach different endpoints for what is legal and what is not legal. That is the part that was incorrectly applied in the Roe v. Wade decision.

  19. Well would you look at that, "my body my choice" is now back with a vengeance all of a sudden!

    After two years of "put on a mask, take this vaccine, and shut the fuck up or you won't be allowed to go anywhere or do anything" that is.

  20. I'm still of the opinion that a right to abortion should be found based on the 13th Amendment on the grounds that forbidding a woman from terminating a pregnancy is a form of compelling involuntary servitude. (Yes, even if she voluntarily had sex in the first place -- no court would enforce an employment agreement that said you had a random chance of having to work for nine months without compensation.)

    1. Any applicability of your analogy requires that one completely ignore the fact that terminating the pregnancy involves the taking of a human life, which is one of the two most fundamental components of the issue. Likening that to quitting a job is ridiculous in the extreme.

    2. As pointed out the 13A doesn't entirely forbid involuntary servitude. It actually allows it if your actions results in a criminal conviction (however, this isn't done in practice, as it's generally runs afoul of cruel and unusual punishment, however you can be employed for less than the minimum wage by the state or via a contracted employer approved by the state). So, it appears that your actions can result in involuntary servitude under the 13A. So the second part of your statement, regarding consensual sex, is wrong, as your actions can result in loss of protection in accordance with the 13A. Additionally, is a normal biological function the same as involuntary servitude? That seems as a large reach there.

    3. I'd say you can't forbid a woman from having an abortion, but you can sure as hell forbid others for performing the procedure.

      1. Kinda like can't forbid a slave from breaking free but no-one can cut the chains for them?

  21. But doesn't the constitution only limit federal or state action that violates individual rights? So the right to bodily integrity would protect against violations of bodily integrity by the state. It's a bit of a stretch to apply that to anti abortion laws.

  22. What Mr. Root fails to acknowledge is that the Supreme Court is not the only branch of government charged with protecting legal and constitutional rights. Certain rights, especially those that require arbitrary line drawing—and moving the lines as medical science advances—are best protected by legislatures, both federal and state. The Supreme Court over the past 50 years has usurped to many of Congress' functions—sadly, because Congress has abdicated its responsibilities and shows no signs of changing.

    As a practical matter, abortion rates are less than half what they were 40 years ago, and would likely continue to decline with or without Roe. Besides, the morning-after pill and future medical advances will likely give women access to abortion no matter where they live.

    Also, as a political matter, our culture wars and the blood feuds sparked by every Supreme Court nomination, can be traced directly to Roe, as convincingly shown by David Kaplan in his book, "The Most Dangerous Branch,." Sadly, they will not end with its demise.

  23. The War on Drugs has already shown what bodily integrity means to the Court.

  24. The mother has rights and at some point in development the developing cells become a human person with rights. When? We define death, the end of human life, as the cessassion of higher brain functions. We could reasonably define the start of human life as the beginning of higher brain function such as learning which begins when hearing starts. Before that time the 13th Amendment protects the mother from the involuntary servitude of unwanted parenthood.

    1. Sentience.

      1. Your sentience has only a noun, and NO verb! FAIL the course, AND the intercourse!

        For those of you who believe in the "magic rights" of germ cells, I need to WARN ye about... Lindsey Lohan!!!

        Lindsay Lohan spends every night in the sewer underneath my home, hoping to catch a single reproduction-capable cell (for cloning or otherwise), as is cast off of my bodily detritus... At Chippendale's, you know, they call me by my stage name, which is Bodily Detritus Delight-us, Excite-us, and Bite-us, you know...

        So y'all slobs ain't got a bat's chance in HELL of scoring w/her; Ah haz gots her ALL tied up! STOP yer unseemly fighting, then!

        ... (Meanwhile, mean-girls-while, back at the raunchy ranch...)

        Fer all of ye breathlessly awaiting paparazzi?

        Lindsay Lohan is STILL in the sewer underneath my home, awaiting any available, viable randomly passing-by somatic cell or gamete, from Yours Truly! I have caught on to her, and so I incinerate ALL of my stray bodily cells! BEFORE flushing! She will NOT body-snatch ANY tiny bit of reproductively capable snippet of My Sacred Bodily Essence or fluids! NO child support, from MEEE!!!!

        One of these days I suppose I should get a restraining order? If one wants to expel the lurkers in one's underground sewer, is that actually called a "restraining odor"?

    2. But that is all averages. It isn't the same for every fetus. The brain doesn't say, or it's 20 weeks, best start functioning at a higher level. By that definition, the brain doesn't function completely until the mid 20s (25 +/- years of age). Some with certain disorders develop much later, some earlier. Some never fully develop that either. Or they develop different than what are considered normal.

      I notice you stated higher brain functions, because brainwaves can be detected early on. Also, it should be noted that this average time frame is directly the result of what we can measure at this point, it doesn't definitively state that is when they start, and that they may not be present but not yet detectable prior to this point.

      A preterm infant, born before this time, has a high likelihood, if it survives, to develop these functions as well. So it isn't dependant on the uterine environment. The earliest preterm infants to survive have been born as early as the 21st week. Almost all of these have been in recent years. Considering the advancements in care, it is reasonable to assume that it may not be much longer until an infant born prior to 21 weeks may survive. The onset of higher brain functions associated with humans begins around this same period, or slightly after this.

      So this cutoff line is arbitrary and would be even more difficult to set. Do we do the type of invasive measurements to determine if infant A at 20 weeks is displaying these brainwaves? And if not, does that mean they won't? In the case of autism, they may not be displaying them or displaying abnormal brainwaves. The same with schizophrenia and other issues. Some may show them at 19 weeks, others at 22. So where do you draw the line?

      1. By that definition, the brain doesn't function completely until the mid 20s (25 +/- years of age).

        Have you met teenagers?

        More than once I've wondered if abortion somewhere after the 40th trimester would be a good idea.

    3. Sounds like a reasonable standard to use the legal definition of human death, reversed, to define human life.

  25. Hey Damon, you should know that SCOTUS answers to the Constitution. After all, you said exactly that here:

    (And why yes, I have been waiting close to a year and a half to throw that back in reason's face.)

  26. I would like to point out in 20 years of reading Reason, I've seen this debate innumerable times. You have the ones who insist that there is no libertarian argument for abortion restrictions vs those who make the argument that abortion violates the NAP. One of the biggest changes is how much more we understand about fetal development and how much medical advancements have increased the chances of survival, even for extremely preterm infants. So the question becomes does passing through the vaginal canal (or via a C-section) give you some magical rights, that didn't exist milliseconds before you passed through that opening? If an infant born at 35 weeks has rights, why not the in utero 35 week old infant? The true libertarian argument is nothing more than a true Scotsman fallacy, that is often argued by the self appointed guardians of libertarianism, and is just as ideological as those who determine who is and isn't a true Republican or Democrat. And it's just as disingenuous.

    1. What about the "magic rights" associated with the HUMAN genes of a fertilized egg cell? What about the rights of fertilized egg cells of... apes... monkeys... cetaceans... pinnipeds... cats... dogs... lizards... insects... (I could obviously go on.) I have seen NO ONE carrying signs and killing abortion doctors over THESE rights! ... WHERE does THIS magic come from?

  27. If they get it done before the ruling is published, is it too late for Pelosi's, Kamala's and Biden's mothers to have late term abortions?

    1. Sure, can we throw in Gaetz, MTG, and a few others?

      1. David Duke and Donald Trump! And Alex Jones!

  28. It seems to me that a fetus may or may not be human, but no human has the right to live inside the body of another human. It seems reasonable and practical to limit the mother's right to abortion well before birth sometime in the second trimester.

    1. Well we seem to be close in agreement, I would differ with your first assertion. The infant didn't ask to reside in another person's body, they were placed there (except in the case of rape) because the mother chose to engage in sexual intercourse, so it was her choices and actions that placed that infant there (as well as the male's).

      1. It was the male's choice to be a Lying Lothario. Now that lied-to-babe has discovered that Lying Lothario has 12 other lied-to "love-ya, Babes, really I do" that are now pregnant by him... YOU chose to side with Lying Lothario, and take AWAY the "veto power" of lied-to babe! ENDORSE that harem; bring ON humanity as a species equivalent to elephant seals!

      2. So you never had sex for pleasure, only to create a fetus?

  29. The writer must have missed out on all the pro vaccine mandate decisions, if he thinks there is a constitutional right to bodily integrity.

    1. You power-pig evils justify MY power-pig evils! THIS is how we will make progress!

      1. ^BINGO..............

    2. There is a crucial difference between pregnancy and a contagious disease, but let’s gloss over that detail.

      1. I have no legal obligation to protect you from nature, but you’ll continue to ignore that.

        1. Women who want abortions and are able to pay for them, just want you and Government Almighty to get out of the way. Are your guv-guns (jails, billy clubs, fines, property-stealing) part of "nature"? If they ARE part of "nature", then they are merely part of your power-pig nature!

          "Lying Lothario" has no LEGAL obligation, either, to refrain from lying to "love ya, babe", and get her pregnant, along with the 7 other "love ya babes" who he has ALSO gotten pregnant, while telling her that SHE is the ONLY one! And YOU want to take AWAY from her, her "veto power" when she finds out! You are taking the side of "Lying Lothario"! ... These kinds of things may be legal, but they sure aren't ethical or moral!

          1. I wasn’t talking about abortion oh squirrelly one. I was pointing out where Mikey was wrong.

            To your points though: I question the number of abortions that happen because some douchebag lied to a woman. Because women are the only ones who can get pregnant, yes the majority of the responsibility falls on their shoulders in regards to sex, contraception, and termination. It sucks, but men got the long end of the stick on that one.

            But thanks for just assuming I’m pro-the state getting involved, even if I find it personally reprehensible.

            1. OK, my apologies then... You sound more reasonable than I had assumed!

              PS, I knew a woman who said she got preggers by a man who SAID he had had a vasectomy! He had NOT!

              1. Do people just not understand that even vasectomies aren’t 100% full proof?

    3. And all the pro draft decisions. Hey, we're going to send you to war where you're going to probably get killed.

  30. While the Constitution may protect more than enumerated rights, killing another human being not in self-defense is not one of them.

    1. Ya know; kinda like enslaving another human being in self-defense is not one of them. Set them free!! Eject the fetus!.....

      Isn't this fun... Arguing about the rights of mythical creatures...

      1. Wait, you think a fetus is a mythical creature? Or do you just not think they’re human?

        1. Unborn babies are mythical creatures...

          A pre Roe v Wade fetus is but a human egg in development that has ZERO (as in not a single chance) of being an individual. Maybe my sperm is an Unborn baby too.... /s

  31. Bodily integrity? If we're generalizing from a broad principle like that to abortion, whose right to bodily integrity is at stake in an abortion?

    And magna carta? You mean the clause that says "Pro iure certandum est celebrationes participandi" ("we must fight for the right to participate in celebrations")?

  32. Pregnancy where the mother is considering to abort is a very hard situation with only bad options. Morally, the fetus/child should live, but the right to abort is a right to go about one business without being owned by another. We do not allow someone (A) to dictate how someone else (B) should live simply because A's life depends upon B. And rights are not inherently based on society's highest moral value. I believe that given current technologies, a woman has the right to abort - but I would never consider it being on the moral side of things.

    1. We do/should not allow...

  33. "That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'"

    What a bunch of absolute horseshit. So the constitution has to write every single right a person is entitled to? It is the exact opposite! if It ain't mentioned it is a right not to be taken!

    1. It's bullshit because when it was written, there was no national history or tradition, so that obviously wouldn't be the implied subtext.

  34. If fetuses that haven't yet been born are "unborn babies," are old people in hospice care who haven't yet died "undeceased corpses"?

    1. We are ALL "undeceased corpses"! NO laws will change this! Deal with it! (On the other hand, I plan to get my head frozen when I die, so that future higher-tech humans can resurrect me... I am SURE that they will want to spend $$$trillions to resurrect MEEEE, rather than just spending 9 months of unskilled human labor... Maybe even just an artificial womb plus nutrients... To get themselves another humanoid-unit...)

    2. ^PERFECT point............ I'll be using that one..

    3. Yes.

      What an incredibly stupid attempt….

  35. Great article! Using Alito’s measuring-stick of “deeply rooted” could also be used on modern weapons also. Do Conservatives really want to open up this can of worms?

    For example: when the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791, the Gatlin Gun had not yet been invented. Continuous firing weapons wouldn’t be invented until about 100 years later. Alito may have just opened up a 2nd Amendment debate about what “deeply rooted”. This interpretation would surely question the ownership of tanks and other weapons of war,

    1. You do realize that Gatling guns have been banned for almost 50 years? And the right to own them has been infringed for 100? Same with explosives. If that isn't the argument that the holy justices are relying upon, I'm sure it's close enough.

  36. Many Republicans and Conservatives support “In Vitro fertilization” which may be far worse than abortion and NOT meeting Alito’s “deeply rooted” test. Apparently in vitro destroys far more embryos than abortions do in the United States.

    There was a moral argument years ago, instead of throwing in vitro embryos into the trash, why not use the embryos to save more lives through stem cell research?

    What about bring back the evil “Eugenics Movement”? The Virginia ACLU has great research into what some states do. Nazi Germany actually adopted many of Virginia’s eugenics practices, trying to breed better humans. States like Virginia sterilized promiscuous girls that were too flirty or perceived mental defects.

    For example: if a state government has authority over our own body (not us), can they force more abortions or sterilization based on behavior in elementary school? This is not theory, it actually happened in the USA. This ruling could have unintended consequences that even Conservatives will regret.

    1. ^Well Said +1000000000000000

  37. It's NOT a collectivist 'right' to be dictating every persons pregnancy....

  38. We routinely define the ending of higher brain function as human death even though there are remaining bodily functions working. It seems logical to define the beginning of human life as the beginning of higher brain functions such as learning which starts when hearing begins at about the end of the second trimester. After that the developing human must have full constitutional rights as a person. Before higher brain function starts the mother is protected by the 13th Amendment which prohibits involuntary servitude. An unwanted pregnancy and a lifetime of unwanted parent hood is most certainly involuntary servitude.

    1. No we most certainly do not. Organ harvesting continues to produce detailed check lists when the moment of death occurs and your Macguffin of 'higher brain function' didn't make the list. When politicians are involved, follow the money. When life and death is involved, follow the cellular activity and you will have your two endpoints of when it begins and when it ends.

    2. Not ‘higher’ brain function, sustained brain waves, usually 16-20 weeks.

      As the comment section shows, many never achieve higher brain function.

  39. Where the draft opinion is 100% spot on is that the entire discussion is outside the purview of the federal government. That in and of itself demands that scotus overturn Roe.

    1. Ironically; That's how it was. Roe v Wade was filed because of conflicting State Laws of Roe and Wade in a relationship.

  40. Wasnt "bodily autonomy" abandoned when they told us we had to shoot ourselves up with experimental drugs? The left might have been able to establish a theory that I could nod my head yes to if they hadn't been utter hypocrites.

  41. Bodily integrity argument falls flat on its face when and where another person is needed to assist. The right to your own body does not include the right 9f someone else to go into it and certainly not the right of someone else to go into it and terminate someone elses life. At this point we're no longer talking about the right to one's own body as a pretense to let someone else into it to kill yet another body.

    The interesting thing to note here is tge clear interest of the hard narcotic trade taking an interest here. Its not just that tge left is in bed with these slime that id point out here. Its that tge right to one's own body is the primary vehicle by which they manipulate.

    All this was contained in my opinion draft btw.

    And frankly, the assertion that the "created mankind to be equal" clause, really did not intend to extend subjective equality to women, is solid and constitutional. The founders were not these feminazi prostitute homo nun drug cults comprising the demonicrat core constituency. Rather, the constitution is meant to reflect natural law as supirior to subjective law. Subjective law is no more natural law per virtue of even ubiquitous subjectivist opinion. Truth exists independently of you and your opinion no matter how many of you carry the same delusion to the contrary.

    "Created mankind to be equal" even when taken as inclusive of women does not tgen honestly suggest the misinterperataion that women should be equal to men but rather tgat women should be equal to eachother and that men should be equal to eachother and that there should be nothing wrong with that. The statment was overwhelminly meant to denote that no man should have way to be pedetast lord of another, the predominating culture they came here to flee. Namely, catholics. Catholics are long since hell bent on homosexuality. The supposed cloistering of convents and monistaries really just a front to motivate conditions where only homosexuality were possible. Their supposed afront to homosexuality really just a vehicle to force gay men into monisteries and xxy's into convents. Not the worst solution by the way but then when made a highly influential social force, catholics cause a poisonous issue. The original deal was that they would be kept separate from cis gendered society, a deal which they've failed to maintain, completely. Largly due to gays sometimes not wanting to be a part of a sexualy segregated roman cult but not for virtue of sexual segregation or roman cults but for virtue of adoration of aberation and for heroin dependence. Heroin is crucial reproductive chemical of the homosexual reproductive scheme.

    When abused heroin becomes tge only goal in one's mind due to basic animal training algorithms. Everything ascociated with heroin then becomes central and permisable in ones mind due to natural human development instincts. Its an ancient tool of the roman pederasty/catamite enslavement model. And note the distinct connection between catamite and castratio(castrated alterboys).

    But whats the real issue? What tool are you best going to be able to deploy to combat the problem of global overpopulation. It seams everyone is most interested in the tools tgat best support their ulterior motives and hayeful of every tool that doesnt support these sometimes primary goals of tangental groups.

    Catholics only want every impossible and unnatural tool "ubiquitous celebacy in conjunction with homosexuality" and hate contraception, bodily process managment, education(serious contraceptive btw, youre completely turned off right now unless youre a junky homo jesuit) etc.

    Openly gay homos only want drugs, prostitute slaves clamped onto abortion knives, and nuclear biological cataclysm and faggot rock colonisation.

    Straight people are too busy either hating life per virtue of being sorrounded by madness that makes natural existance impossible, or, they're too busy loving life being anethitised by a hoard of drug pushers of every literal and/or metiphorical narcotic. They're too ignorent of the operative forces and facts and often in complete contrarionism just waiting for a strysand effect tgey can believe in. And its really quite amazing how far over the edge of the cliff they'll hang before looking down. Maybe grow wings perhaps?

    I've literally heard some feminazis recently state they're in full support of the patriarchy... what patriarcy? Cis gendered males are not an organization. We're not a group. Only 90% of tge knives in our backs coming out of a war with the most mysogynustic nations of the earth are from feminazi homo cults. The last 10% is from eachother who're supposedly this so called patriarchy. It seems to be headed by some damned pederast somewhere...

    Extra rough draft... zero fks given.

  42. I am Olivia Johnson, working as the senior seo executive geekscan company. I am managing all the seo activities of the company. For information you can visit our website and get the information. Here we will provide you only interesting content, which you will like very much. We’re dedicated to providing you the best of Informational, with a focus on dependability and Technology. We’re working to turn our passion for Informational into a booming online website. We hope you enjoy our Informational as much as we enjoy offering them to you.I will keep posting more important posts on my Website for all of you. Please give your support and love.

  43. Namely, the right to terminate a pregnancy may be justly seen as a subset of the right to bodily integrity

    There is no right to bodily integrity, and there never has been.

    This was demonstrated most recently this year, when Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor voted with others to approve the Biden Admin's Covid "vaccine" mandate.

    There can be no "bodily integrity" when I can be forced to inject a substance as a condition of employment. Or if I can be refused service at restaurants etc (see vaccine passports)

  44. "the right of bodily integrity has a very impressive historical pedigree indeed. In fact, as the legal scholar Sheldon Gelman detailed in a 1994 Minnesota Law Review article, the right to bodily integrity may be traced back to the Magna Carta."
    Abortion was illegal at the time of Magna Carta and remained illegal after Magna Carta therefore the right cannot be part of the Magna Carta rights.

  45. Assuming that the court actually overturns Roe, do the learned justices actually think their ill advised ruling will lay the question to rest or significantly impact the performance of abortions in this country?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.