What the Leaked Abortion Opinion Gets Wrong About the Founding Era
Understanding state regulatory powers at the time of the founding.
"The Constitution makes no reference to abortion," argues Justice Samuel Alito's leaked "1st Draft" opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, "and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe [v. Wade] and [Planned Parenthood v.] 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 concludes: "The right to an abortion does not fall within this category."
Alito distorts the relevant legal history and thus misstates the historical pedigree of abortion rights. "When the United States was founded and for many subsequent decades, Americans relied on the English common law," explains an amicus brief filed in Dobbs by the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians. "The common law did not regulate abortion in early pregnancy. Indeed, the common law did not even recognize abortion as occurring at that stage. That is because the common law did not legally acknowledge a fetus as existing separately from a pregnant woman until the woman felt fetal movement, called 'quickening,' which could occur as late as the 25th week of pregnancy."
A survey of founding-era legal authorities confirms this view. For example, William Blackstone's widely read Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in 1765, notes that life "begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb." Under the common law, Blackstone explained, legal penalties for abortion only occurred "if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb." Put differently, abortion was legal in the early stages of pregnancy under the common law.
Blackstone's writings had a significant influence on America's founding generation. Take James Wilson. He was a driving force at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention and a leading voice for the Constitution's ratification at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention. In his 1790 Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, Wilson simply repeated Blackstone. "In the contemplation of law," Wilson wrote, "life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb."
At the time of the founding, no American state possessed the lawful power to prohibit abortion before quickening because the states adhered to the common law as described by Blackstone and Wilson. We might call this the original understanding of the regulatory powers of the states. And as the historical evidence makes clear, that original understanding runs counter to Alito's assertion that abortion rights—at least during the early stages of pregnancy—lack deep roots in American history.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The fuck does Highlander have to do with abortion?
You can have only one?
I know someone who blew that out of the water. She had thirteen abortions.
Sensing movement was the ONLY way a woman was sure she was early stage pregnant. In other words, abortion was illegal as soon as the woman was aware she was pregnant.
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.
But by week 24, the fetus has barely more than a brain stem. All those functions and movements you are citing are controlled at a low level by the brain stem.
The part of the brain that performs higher level cognitive processes ONLY start to develop then, and continues well after birth.
Being that only a fraction of the total neurons of a human body are in the brain, you're fallaciously posing that the whole of life exists there alone. Sure it may be where all the impulses converge but that does not then suggest that a brain is the only seat of life. There's nothing at all to suggest your feet dont hold as much memory as your brain. Im certain my dick has more brain cells than leftist women.
Side note:
Fagot junky land google recently suppressed any credible citation on a search: how many neurons in the human body
They suppressed it by only returning results for how many neurons in the human brain.
Pretty clear which side junky fagots are taking on this. As i recall the brain only has 1/4th of your total neuron mass.
lol
Damon, you are such a pathetically dishonest hack that it's embarrassing
Alito answered your drivel in the document you're pretending to respond to:
Although a pre-quickening abortion was not itself considered homicide, it does not follow that abortion was permissible at common law--much less that abortion was a legal right. Quite to the contrary, in the 1732 case mentioned above, the judge said of the charge of abortion (with no mention of quickening) that he had "never met with a case so barbarous and unnatural." Similarly, and indictment from 1602, which did not distinguish between a pre-quickening a post-quickening abortion, described abortion as "pernicious" and "against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity."
That the common law did not condone even pre-quickening abortions is confirmed by what one might call a proto-felony-murder rule. Hale and Blackstone described a way in which a pre-quickening abortion could rise to the level of a homicide. Hale wrote that if a physician gave a woman "with child" a "potion" to cause an abortion, and the woman died, it was "murder" because the potion was given "unlawfully" to destroy her child within her. As Blackstone explained, to be "murder" a killing had to be done with "malice aforethought, either express or implied." in the case of an abortionist, Blackstone wrote, "the law will imply [malice] for the same reason that it would imply malice if a person who intended to kill one person accidentally killed a different person:
"[I]f one shoots at A and misses him, but kills B, this is murder; because of the previous felonious intent, which the law transfers from one to the other. The same is the case, where one lays poison for A; and B, against whom the poisoner had no malicious intent, takes it, and it kills him; this is likewise murder. So also, if one gives a woman with child a medicine to procure abortion, and it operates so violently as to kill the woman, this is murder in the person who gave it."
Notably, Blackstone, like Hale, did not state that this proto-felony-murder rule required that the woman be "with quick child"--only that she be "with child".
The fact that you don't even try to address that shows just how worthless your side's position is
You don't even know what 'with child' means. It means a later stage of pregnancy - when it is now deemed to be two legal people rather than the earlier one. Quickening is a very specific example - a fetus that is kicking noticeably. But that is not the only evidence of a pregnancy at that rough stage. Regardless, what defined a 'child' then was clear and irrefutable evidence of existence - by all. That does not mean an ultrasound (which can be faked). It doesn't mean test results (which can be both faked and requires a third-party expert to interpret). It doesn't mean a range of arguments about when life begins in principle/theory.
Yes medicine has changed since the days of 'quickening' and 'with child'. But you goddamn legal originalists should at least try to remain a bit less opportunistically hypocritical on this abortion issue where you all avidly endorse a living constitution (as long as the living are priests or Catholic judges).
'Viability' is exactly the modern equivalent of those older terms - in rough age of fetus AND ability to have irrefutable evidence that said CHILD is separate from the mother
LOL
No, *I* know exactly what "with child" means, it's you who either doesn't know, or is lying.
"with quick child" in Blackstone means "with a child that has quickened"
"With child" means pregnant, whether or not the child has quickened".
That's why there were two separate terms.
And no, "quickening" wasn't about "proving the existence", it's about proving that the baby is alive, not just a miscarriage that her body has yet to expel.
See https://www.naomiclifford.com/jury-of-matrons-welkin/ for an example of use of "with quick child"
ProTip:
Don't write with your head up your backside
Don't forget, too, that in that time, many diseases and conditionis were "cured" by things like bloodletting, leeches, srange near-fatal potions, and other "procedures" now known to be harmful or lethal. Mercury was lso used in healing.Today if a housewife drops one of those little squiggly flourescent screw in lightbulbs, they gott roll HzMat, the poison squad, evcuate the house, treat at a cost of many thousands of dollars, and wait till the EPA blows the "all clear" whistle before Mum and offspring can return.
Just cuz they did this and that back then does not make it rught. We also enslaved people with dark skin and that was considered "upright and moral". Hah, they weren't even "people" under some laws. (now about 70% of those murdered whilst yet within their own mother's womb are black...... maybe THAT"S why the fuss over Roe right now... a secret desire by some to continue exterminating "certain peoples" in the womb?
And NOBODY is taking into account the life of that unborn child. I know quite a few who were scheduled for the suction hose because their mother just did not want the hassle. She changed her mind, which often happens when seeing the ultrasound showing her what that CHILD looks like inside her. She often then relents and brings the child into this world, letting some other family raise her as if she were thheir own. Those schedued to be killed before birth children are now parents of their own offspring, and VERY thankful their borth mother relented and decided to let them live. Some of them have been able to know their birth mother growing up, and some even have learned they had other older siblings who were NOT allowed to live.
Enslaving Africans was not part of the common law.
We also enslaved people with dark skin
They also enslaved people of every color
Civil war to end slavery constitutes "deeply rooted."
Side note, biden based immigration proclomation necessitating a sworn statment amounting to possible reverse indentured servitude constitutes a contradiction to constitutional antislavery laws.
Executive Order 14012
This seems to ignore a key point, which is that, given then extant medical technology, "quickening" was the first point in pregnancy where anybody besides the woman could know she was pregnant. Prior to that point you couldn't prove guilt!
Yeah, let's follow the science--15th century science.
You have to expect that the law is not going to prohibit what it has no way of proving in court actually happened.
15th century? More like 4th century BC. Aristotle placed it at 40 days gestation for boys and 80 days gestation for girls. Didn't matter much in classical Greece, since they practiced abortion as well as infanticide via exposure. Sort of like what some Democratic governors would like to see protected by law.
The Quickening overpowers you.
I feel everything! I know - I know everything! I am everything!
It is the strange thing that defending abortion rights seems to require ignoring advance in understanding human biology as well as ditching the universality of human rights.
"...advance in understanding human biology."
Right; we're now so advanced that according to one supreme court justice you have to be one [biologist] to even know what a woman is.
Why does that seem to be a requirement? If they had known more embryology at that time, do you assume that would've made any difference in the law? Why couldn't you see jurists at the time being given a modern course in embryology and then saying, "OK, but we're stickening with quickening as critering."?
So we're back to "originalism" being "what they would have said if they knew what I knew" then?
Because the quickening standard was the best of knowledge at the time and it shows that there were restrictions on abortion. Also, pro-abortion rights advocates today would not accept the quickening standard as a limitation on abortion. It is a rear guard argument which does not support the current Roe/Casey regime itself.
what makes you think they weree basing a standard on knowledge? why couldn't it have been simply that they picked what they thought was a reasonable point, just because it was arbitrary and discernable? Jurists do that sort of thing all the time, as with laws on how old you have to be to do legally enforceable things. Why would they not have done the same for abortions? You're imputing to them a search for non-arbitrariness, some "scientific" standard, when that may not have been on their minds at all.
That was my point: It was discernable: They banned abortion at the earliest point they could actually detect pregnancy.
From this you assume that they'd actively made a decision not to ban pregnancies they had no way to detect? I suppose in some sense that was true, they refrained from a ban they'd have had no way to enforce because they'd have had no way to prove violations.
Well, Roberta, see my comment above.
Alito quoted Hale and Blackstone both saying that abortion was not legal even before quickening. Damon just skipped that part since it blows up his article
Why is that a key point? Do you assume they would have forbidden any abortion they could detect? Could "quick" have been chosen as a criterion for some other reason than an evidentiary one?
Roberta, your fallacy is thinking that an embryo is the same as a "quickened" fetus when the definition of that word is an active human life at or nearing viability. Since the qualities which are meant by "quickening" are not codified, the most logical interpretation of it's meaning is as I have described, not the union of a sperm and egg of little to no form.
If you equate embryos with human life as commonly accepted then where is the movement to save miscarriages of which millions to billions occur yearly worldwide?
Uhhh, you mean, like encouraging pregnant women to get medical care? Or is this one of those "if you don't explicitly speak out against something (like miscarriages or child abuse), you must therefore be for it"?
Just for the record, I am against all bad things.
Junk, early miscarriages occur in large numbers before women know they are pregnant, and of course there is little we can do about them. The point is that an embryo is not a "baby" or we should be freaking out about them. Sure "life begins a conception" but not all life is a baby or equal to a "quickened" - read active and viable - human life. Defining where along that continuum we set the line is not clear cut and so the logic of Roe's dating, which follows the idea of the common law "quickening", is the best we can do unless we want to let medical advances move the line for viability. If you eliminate it you're saying embryos are babies and that is a religious idea, not biological.
Lol, tell that to all the women grieving their lost babies.
"Defining where along that continuum we set the line is not clear cut and so the logic of Roe's dating, which follows the idea of the common law "quickening", is the best we can do unless we want to let medical advances move the line for viability."
Says who? It's the best we can do because you say so?
Joe Friday, fuck off.
I'm not thinking anything about that right now. I'm thinking about what jurists centuries ago may have been thinking, and comparing that to what Brett Bellmore says s/he thinks was a key point to them. I think we don't know what was on their minds, but the likelihood was that abortions were a sort-of-good-and-sort-of-bad thing to them then as they seem to be now, and that they sought a compromise that reflected neither absolute acceptance nor absolute rejection.
OK, not sure what that means, except we should remember that while they did not have scanning machines and labs then, they certainly had seen fetuses, miscarriages, etc and were not babes in the woods about what these creatures looked like and their relative development. True, they could not detect brainwaves, etc. but they surely had a sense of a being either close to functioning human life, or at the other extreme, just an embryonic mass of tissue, and probably better than we do in our now sanitized and compartmentalized lives.
It means that the law sometimes sees some good and some bad at each extreme of a spectrum, and so decides on something in the middle. There doesn't have to be a salient reason to pick that point, just that it's a discernible one in the middle.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
So is this something like only muskets are protected by the 2A because of then existing technology? Or are you saying that only Top Men in a white lab coat and ultrasound can determine when life exists inside the womb?
Fact is also that capital punishment for pregnant women then was only suspended if quickening had occurred. Before then the woman would be hanged even after months of no menses and her claim that she was pregnant with child.
Tldr for the second paragraph - The state was perfectly ok killing a pre-quickening fetus ITSELF.
they can't notice a missed period before 25 weeks?
Many women have irregular periods. Some can be quite erratic - having one a month for a spell and then might going three or four months is not unheard of.
Then there are the ones who may be regular, but whose flow is often miniscule.
Ewwww
Um, no, this is a quite basic logical error on your part, Mr. Root. That early American legislatures did not outlaw some form of conduct does not suffice to actually establish that they could not do so because there was a right to engage in the conduct. The Fourteenth Amendment secured established rights of citizens of the United States against the states, it did not declare that everything that was legal at any given point in history unalterably legal.
Part of where we went wrong was the change in the conception of the police power from early in the 19th century to the end of it. Concomitant to that you got the theory of rational basis, which sadly is a misnomer, as government needs no rational basis to enact a law (and it is only considered invalid if it tramples a specific liberty interest). This enabled the progressive enterprise - to make people better - by increasing control over their autonomous behavior.
Now do vaping.
Is Root deliberately being obtuse, or just hoping people will not read past the headlines?
Root: Ackshewally, common law did recognize a woman's right to an early stage abortion. Here is my proof: "common law did not even recognize abortion as occurring at that stage."
So all Root can hang his head upon is yet the same god damn question that we have: when is the fetus a human life? As soon as the living being was recognized through medical research, Common Law protected it from the mother. There was never some Due Process nonsense. Common Law recognized that even mothers do not have the right to kill another person. The argument has ALWAYS been and ALWAYS will be, when does that life begin.
Root is the one who is torturing the language. He is finding a right to abortion where people explicitly denied an abortion was happening, because they did not understand how life worked inside the womb. And we see that in every case up until the 1970s, as soon as evidence emerged that a person was dying in the process, they outlawed it. That indicates that indeed, no one ever thought a woman's right to bodily integrity meant the right to kill a baby.
I feel like most people when asked use viability as their bright red line. And if I'm reading Damon correctly, even back at the founding that seems to be where the line was.
Nope. "Quickening" isn't "viability", it's "when you can actually know there's a baby there."
They didn't have ultrasounds or bunny killing pregnancy tests. We do
The bunny does not have to die either.
All you really needed was one ovary.
Ultrasounds and tests only prove a life exists to those who BELIEVE in ultrasounds and tests and in those Top Men who administer and interpret them.
There is no single red line - agreed upon by all. That's kind of been understood since forever.
See Luke 1
The Angel Gabriel knows the life will begin before conception. Elizabeth kind of believes something but doesn't KNOW until Mary says hello in her sixth month and the child (John the Baptist) leaps up in her belly (quickening).
Zacharias (father) doesn't believe or know until John is actually born and he is given the responsibility of naming the child.
The Catholic Church in 1868 (14th amendment) believed that quickening was when 'ensoulment' (far more important than mere life on Earth) begins.
The Catholic Church in 1968 (Humanae Vitae) proclaimed that life begins at conception and that is why contraception is sinful.
Fundamentalist Protestants didn't start thinking much about it until after Roe v Wade - then again, fundamentalists don't really understand that their entire approach to religion didn't exist in 1868.
So Blackstone has a prohibition on abortion after quickening. How exactly does that prove that practically unrestricted abortion regime under Roe/Casey is justified by some right to abortion? If anything, it shows there was no a general understanding that abortion should be legal, and the better scientific understanding of how pregnancy works naturally does invite better defined restrictions on abortion.
The natural right to applyist thine leeches in abundance shall not be infringed.
My leech protects you, your leech protects me.
This will never not get old.
"If one strikes a pregnant woman or gives her poison in order to procure an abortion, if the fetus is already *formed* or quickened, especially if it is quickened, he commits homicide"- Henry de Bracton in 1250. Obviously there were discussion about when a fetus becomes a human life.
I'm generally a lurker, but this piece from Root is awful. Nevermind, he completely side steps the issue of when a fetus is a human life; he selectively picks quotes to support his arguement. This is ultimatly the issue with Roe, its based on faulty reasoning and as a result any attempt to defend the decision descends into bs talking points referencing the "handmaid's tale" or nonsense pieces like this from Root.
What if "when a fetus is a human life" is not the issue, but "when is it OK to kill a human, or any other, life" is the issue?
I think the "when is it ok to kill a human, or any other, life" is the real issue. The problem ultimately is many do not want to have an honest conversation about the issue. Further, I suspect the reason you get pieces like the one above from Root, the push to not overturn Roe, and the dubious arguments surrounding Roe is due to that question.
I also think the fear of people like Root and other's in the media is that if left to voters, we will see more restrictive laws( as compared to Roe) across the US. I also do not think the abortion issue really tracks with most Americans.
"when is it ok to kill a human, or any other, life"....
I couldn't think of a more appropriate time than when it has it's head up one's *ss... Especially if that head is being a threat to one's own survival.
Next Question.
"when is it okay to TAKE-AWAY a persons right to their own body?"...
Out of all the things one has TRUE ownership of it should be their body. Without 'owning' their body what true Individual ever really exists???? One could easily say one's own body is but me and any violation of it is of me at it's most PERSONAL level.
Or put in an even less extreme scenario.. How about when a man shoves part of him inside her against her will? Heck; if you can't recognize a woman's body autonomy right why not legalize rape?
This is a disingenuous argument. I never said anything about legalizing rape. The issue is when/if the fetus is considered a separate individual or being. This is an example of what I mentioned earlier with "handmaiden's tale" arguments. I find it odd that people refuse to either take part in a honest conversation/debate or simply stay out of the conversation/debate, and immediately jump to an extreme situation like rape that makes up an infinitesimally small number of abortions. On the topic of rape, hospitals have the ability to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STD's, so I am not sure why this is even part of the debate.
when/if the fetus is considered a separate individual ( honestly in pure language that is an oxymoron in context ) born is what makes it a "separate individual" (humorously also the exact word used in the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment)...
But ignoring the oxymoron...
Problem solved by making fetal ejection legal....
If it can be made to be a "separate individual" then there shouldn't be any hang-up about it.
The only real debate surrounding abortion is the propaganda of mythical creatures. Pretending a house stands where a foundation is.
Where in the 14th amendment does it mention separate individual's. Yes the 14th amendment states the word born in the context of citizenship. The 14th amendment does not state "born makes a fetus a separate individual" this is a conclusion you came to and then read it into the 14th amendment. There were dozens of laws across the country concerning abortion. Yet none of these laws were affected by the 14th Amendment until the Roe decision 107 years later.
Additionally in the Roe decision, no where is the 14th amendment cited to ascribe individual hood to birth.
Right.... So it doesn't say "mythical creatures" are citizens now does it?
Ha!... this great! Your now talking about unicorns?
Yes; Seems when it comes to abortion there's a whole Power-Mad [WE] mob insisting unicorns have rights that supersede *real* people's own body rights...
Yes; Seems when it comes to abortion there's a whole Power-Mad [WE] mob insisting unicorns have rights that supersede *real* people's own body rights...
This really isnt the case. There's a debate over when life begins. It ranges from conception to birth. Some states do allow abortion up through the 9 month. Why would a premature birth say at 8 months be an individual, but a fetus still in the womb be a "unicorn" or a "mythical creature" without any rights?
To make that arguement you would be on one side of the debate. This is why the topic should be debated and voted on.
Sorry. I'm not comfortable having [WE] mobs vote on what to do with my body...
However; If my consciousnesses has failed for an unknown length of time (or isn't created yet) and no one knows what to do... MY PERSONAL FAMILY would be the ONLY one's I'd want in charge of me - not some Political Power-Mad [WE] Mob thousands of miles away who knows absolutely NOTHING about me and my family except how to STICK THEIR NOSES into places it doesn't belong.
"Sorry. I'm not comfortable having [WE] mobs vote on what to do with my body..."
I don't think an unborn child is either, thus you've forfeited your right to life as well.
Good luck.
Yea; I'm sure unicorns are comfortable living inside someone else. /s
Does a mother have a take care requirement of a 1 day old infant post birth? Or can she simply set it on the floor and walk away?
Your bodily autonomy argument states you can not force the woman to expire her own energy for take care.
Hut hum.... Adoption....
"adoption"
Wonderful, but what to do up until the moment when someone else actually begins to care for the child?
Whether it's an appropriate role for State's or not.
State's have already taken care of that.
If the woman allowed the man to shove a part of him inside in the first place, does she have the right to cut that part off?
If you shove someone's head up your ass, they should be able to crawl through you on an epic quest to reach the esophagus.
In all seriousness, the fetus is generally NOT a threat to the woman's life in the overwhelming number of cases.
Who shoved the head up one's *ss? Would you have been involved in that "shoving". As far as a person's right to their own body, that's the discussion over when is the fetus considered a human life. Or when is the fetus considered an individual. So take your question "when is it ok to take-away a person's right to their own body"? Is it conception, viability, birth, the ability to survive on one's own?
Therefore; Fetal ejection should be a persistent right.
If the concerning point is when it can be considered an individual - then it's removal isn't an issue.
No, if the concerning point is when it can be considered an individual, the question still remains; when is it an individual?
When it's separate... Per Webster dictionary...
Definition of fetus
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind
specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.
per Webster's a fetus is a human. I don't see were you could argue that a human is not an individual.
Also from Webster's:
Child-3a: an unborn or recently born person
So, unless you would argue a child is not an individual, it would seem per Webster's (as you suggested) a fetus is an individual.
Wrong word.... Here; let me help you...
c : being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole
: existing as a distinct entity : separate
obsolete : inseparable
"I don't see were you could argue that a human is not an individual. "
Is my Thumb human? Is it it's own person too?
How is someone with a unique DNA signature not a distinct entity? You can not split any part of it to form a second individual. You are reading the definition incorrectly.
Pubius, you are resorting to semantics and even using your own text, a fetus younger than 2 months is not a human. As per common sense, which I argue is inherent in the "quickening" standard, both activity and viability are required for a fetus to be defined as a human the state has an interest in protecting. Embryos are cheap by the laws of biology - millions to billions are miscarried around the world yearly - and are essentially dynamic tissue without individualization, agency, sensability, or viability. Sorry, but that is a not a baby or a human life. If there were, we should be in perpetual mourning for the great numbers lost constantly and everywhere and without hope.
TJJ is one of those anti-science morons that thinks the fetus isn't an individual by virtue of being attached to the mother.
I wonder what he thinks about conjoined twins.
"I wonder what he thinks about conjoined twins"
It's a very !!!--PERSONAL--!!! dilemma.... Not a place for [WE] mob driven Gov-Gun dictates. Something about Individual Liberty and Justice.
Pro-Life is so OCD (about winning) and saving their "mythical creatures" they've sold-out their very basis of Individual Liberty clear down to common-sense of people own their own bodies.
You can ask me about pulling the plug on FAMILY members next. Somehow I don't find much of a [WE] mob packing Gov-Guns of dictation interest there either.
Joe Friday
I never made and argument that a fetus would be defined as a human either before or after 2 months. Someone asked for a definition per Webster's and that is what i responded to. My initial comment in this thread was in regard to Root's article. I simply cited a quote from 1250 that mentions both formation and quickening. With this in mind quickening could not be the sole standard of colonial and early republic ideas/laws concerning abortion. If in 1250 there was a noted difference between what they defined as "formation" and "quickening", there would have obviously been a discussion on when life begins, when is the fetus considered human, ect...
Through out this thread, I have simply asked when is a fetus considered should be considered human. I tend to disagree with both conception and birth. Another poster stated birth, and he and I had a conversation about that. It is within this conversation that Webster's dictionary was cited.
TJJ, I shouldn't have called you a moron, apologies.
But I wasn't making a call on what should be done in regards to abortion. I was simply pointing out that trying to say the fetus isn't an individual is a stupid position, as is your thumb comment.
Calling it "stupid" doesn't make it go away.
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Maybe the question should be: When does an individual come under the protections and subjugations of the US Constitution?
Removal wouldn't be an issue, but killing and extraction would be. Which is what abortion does.
So make the supposed "killing" illegal and leave the extraction alone. (after all isn't the argument it's actually an individual??) So PROVE it by ejection.
"when is it okay to TAKE-AWAY a persons right to their own body?"...
Well, according to the Biden Admin, a large number of Dem governors, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, you can do it whenever it makes you feel good to do it.
The Biden Admin "covid vaccine mandate" came down after the strains of Covid that were infecting people were ones the shots had not been made for, and weren't effective against.
To the point that it was scientifically established over a month before the mandate was released that the shots did not stop the spread of covid, or even slow it down.
If "bodily autonomy" does not mean "I can refuse to let you inject something into me", then it means nothing
"you can do it whenever it makes you feel good to do it"
^EXACTLY.....................
The problem...
Greg, the unvaxxed led new cases, ICU admittance, and deaths by large numbers in both red and blue states, so yes they worked spectacularly.
No one was forced to get a vaccine. Anti-abortioners are trying to force women to have babies.
So I assume you'd be okay with OSHA fining any company that employs a woman who has had an abortion? That wouldn't be forcing women to get babies, just making them face consequences for their actions.
Joe, the public health justification for "vaccine mandates" is that the vaccine will slow / stop the spread of the disease
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/
Published online 2021 Sep 30
Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States
There can be lots of reasons why people who didn't get teh jab were over-represented on the "covid bad things" lists.
But if the jabs were actual vaccines that had a positive public health effect WRT transmission of Covid, then that paper wouldn't be correct.
But the paper is correct. You can download all the data yourself and test the results.
Ever since early September 2021, there's either been no meaningful correlation between "vaccination rate" and "transmission rate", or else the correlation has been positive (which is to say: more people in the county with the jab == MORE covid cases)
There was no legitimate justification for the Biden Admin Medicare Covid mandate. But SCOTUS upheld it, and the three "pro-Roe" members all voted for the mandate
You assume soooo much in those "questions". You can't take away what is not had. What sort of thing has the power to own anything?
Apparently owning one's own body these days is too much to ask???
But your position isn't that a woman owns just her body, but the body of another distinct human she's created as well.
Nope... As long as that other body isn't in her body all is well.
Free the Fetus! Eject the Fetus!
Imagine being so pro baby murder that you go out and protest - with your limited time on this earth, and at your own expense - in order to keep the killing fields humming along.
These people are both spiritually bankrupt and morally dead.
https://tritorch.com/abortionslope
Ruth Sent Us is offering stipends. So, not necessarily "on your own dime"
These people are both spiritually bankrupt, intellectually void, and morally dead.
FIFY. Seriously, *some* have refuge in spirits, morals, and intellect, but plenty will openly horse trade on all three grounds and then be surprised when someone concludes that they don't actually have any morals, spirit, or intellect and just want to murder babies.
What "baby"???
at your own expense
facts not in evidence
Roe is specifically based on motivated reasoning. It is trying to construct supporting logic to a conclusion already reached.
First time dealing with humans?
That was supposed to be a response to Publius at 10:15 am.
All reasoning is motivated. Nobody works for free.
Ah, so what you're saying is that your "reasoning" is always dishonest, and that you therefore assume all the rest of us are the same.
That's not correct for us. I'll accept it's correct for you
Not dishonest. But you get what you pay for. If you're lucky.
All reasoning is work. You want to get work done, you must be motivated. You must have some nefarious meaning of "motivated" in mind.
"'Motivated Reasoning' is the phenomena in cognitive science and social psychology in which emotional biases can lead to justification or decisions based on their desirability rather than an accurate reflection of the evidence."
It is a scholarly term of art.
"Nobody works for free."
Oh I'm pretty sure some of the commenters here are merely responding to internal stimuli.
>>misstates the historical pedigree of abortion rights
blah blah blah let the fucking people vote on it.
Let the [WE] mobs take away Individual Rights!!! /s
or add them.
*protect
It's not a right, and never has been.
Which is why Roe was such crap, and why the lefties attempting to write anything against the Alito draft have all been total failures
Wow... Now owning one's own body isn't a right in the USA???
What will be next? I find it rather sickening how Gov-Gun worship has taken over the idea of Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
sell me your kidney.
You mean I can be paid to give my blood, since I won it?
Oh, wait, that's against Federal law. So is this:
42 U.S. Code § 274e - Prohibition of organ purchases
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce. The preceding sentence does not apply with respect to human organ paired donation.
Any pretense that the American people of a right of "bodily integrity" or "liberty" that the US Constitution protects from State Federal intrusion has been utterly nuked over the last year by Democrat Governors and their Covid "vaccine" mandates, "vaccine passport" requirements, and the Federal covid "vaccine" mandate from teh Biden Admin.
All supported by Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor.
It's like you people are just so stupid that you can't even imagine your actions having consequences you won't like
You wildly mistaken me to be a leftard...
What's humorous is while you're griping about leftards dismissing "bodily integrity" or "liberty" here you are griping that I don't support EXACTLY the same.... Think about it.
Um, no
I'm not "griping" about the way the leftards dismissed "bodily integrity" or "liberty"
I'm pointing out that their choice to do so has consequences
So bad policy can always be made badder policy? Was that ur point? Didn't sound like you thought....
"Any pretense that the American people of a right of "bodily integrity" or "liberty" that the US Constitution protects from State Federal intrusion has been utterly nuked over the last year by Democrat Governors and their Covid "vaccine" mandates"
was good policy.
But hey; if the fire's already started throw on some more logs 🙂
Do you believe that because an action was not illegal under common law, that therefore there was a common law right to do it? Could there not be an area of law wherein legislators had the power to prohibit a practice, but had not chosen to do so? To think otherwise is to believe that legislation is forever frozen in whatever condition it was at the founding, i.e. that the states have no power to legislate.
Oh. I see DRM wrote substantially the same thing. Sorry.
This "it was legal under the common law, therefore it is a right" theory of interpretation gets particularly entertaining when you notice things like, say, that what is now called "marital rape" was not illegal under common law.
(Indeed, given the actual language used in documentation of the common law like The History of the Pleas of the Crown, it is, at the least, much less difficult to use historical sources to make the argument the 14th Amendment secured a right to marital rape against the states than it is to make the argument it secured a right to abortion against the states.)
Good points.
"that what is now called "marital rape" was not illegal under common law."
And a man could be jailed or fined for his wife's crime. A weird quirk of common law considering a man and wife as a single person under the law.
One that early feminist rightly pointed out the absurdity of.
And I agree, while common law has a right to privacy thread within it, the right right to make decision of profound personal importance without government interference, it doesn't seem to have extended to abortion in cases where the act was clearly known. Though on the other hand the use of abortificant herbs to encourage menses was not uncommon.
Obviously "quickened" would mean functioning human life, not the primitive union of egg and sperm. If the latter is so precious, keep in mind that at least 25% on average of these unions end in miscarriages in the 1st 3 months of pregnancies. We say "at least" because very early miscarriages - within a several weeks - are so unnoticeable to the women that no one knows how many. Now, given that as women age, their odds of miscarrying increase so that at over 40 as many as 80% of pregnancies end in miscarriages, perhaps we should arrest anyone getting pregnant at that age for reckless endangerment.
Clearly "original intent" is bullshit spouted by the likes of Alito and Scalia to justify their political biases and this is a clear case of that, as was Heller.
Now, if we want to force women carry their fetuses to term, we should similarly insist on other agents in this event taking their responsibility, not just the woman who is not alone in parenthood and who's right to decide is removed.
1. The state shall seek and find the father and attach future wages for support until the prospective child is of age.
2. The state shall ensure proper funds for support until the prospective child is of age. If that is what voters want, citizens should take responsibility and pay for their choice.
"1. The state shall seek and find the father and attach future wages for support until the prospective child is of age."
Umm, they already do that.
"The state shall ensure proper funds for support until the prospective child is of age. If that is what voters want, citizens should take responsibility and pay for their choice."
Others should pay for the woman's choices?
No damikesac, the state does not actively seek fathers and attach wages. Weak efforts are made.
"Others" in this case are the voters removing the woman's choice and forcing her to reproduce. OK, voters should take financial responsibility for their choice and pay up.
Let’s just not murder babies, m’kay?
What "baby"???
You're very leftist like in your attempt to redefine words to make your argument.
Exactly.... 100-Times on the reverse of what you think.
The ones being aborted? I should think that perfectly clear.
A fertilized egg is not a baby. Liar, liar.
And this whole "Well, you'll need to prosecute all miscarriages" mentality is retarded.
Nobody is going to prosecute miscarriages just as they do not prosecute heart attacks.
damik, I sarcastically favored prosecuting older women for engaging in behavior which is high risk for miscarriages. If an embryo is a human life, why not?
You’re too stupid for this discussion.
What will be the punishment then?
You sound like that CA city that mandated masks and then was shocked that the police beat up a kid for not wearing a mask.
Government only has force.
Elvis, I already said I was being sarcastic. I don't favor punishing women who become pregnant at advanced ages because I don't think embryos are babies.
Cool for you. A lot of those same women do feel like they've lost babies.
If only [WE] could've gotten those Gov-Guns into her life faster!!
[WE] could've saved all those "lost babies".....
Gov-Guns always knows best in other peoples personal lifes.... /s
No one ever says they’ve ‘lost an embryo’ when they miscarry. Stupid shitweasel.
And impregnated women don't say they've just been 'murdering children' after going to the clinic for an abortion.
An interesting history lesson, that leaves out the broader context.
Originally the states were free to regulate pretty much everything, and Congress had only those powers specifically granted, with certain listed rights in the Bill of Rights specifically protected from Congressional action, which were later incorporated vs. the states by the 14th Amendment.
All of which is a long way of saying that Roe v. Wade was clearly a flawed legal decision, regardless of what the definition of abortion was in the 18th century.
CE, Roe under the 14th Amendment, determined that abortion was a basic constitutional rights. States can't abridge constitutional rights.
why are you afraid of the people voting for their abortion rights?
Dilinger, we don't vote on constitutional rights, but if the illegitimate SC court rules that we will, put this before voters:
If we want to force women to carry their pregnancies to term, we should similarly insist on others involved in this event taking their responsibility, not just the woman. They are not alone in parenthood and if the state forces them to bear children by removing their right to decide, the state should take responsibility for its choice.
1. The state shall seek and find the father and attach future wages for support until the prospective child is of age.
2. The state shall ensure proper funds for support until the prospective child is of age. If that is what voters want, citizens should take responsibility and pay for their choice.
>>we don't vote on constitutional rights
if overturned no constitutional right. you'll need a vote for the murder privileges.
I can't believe your advocating the loss of liberty to murder one's own problem causing appendixes..
everyone should be allowed life. sorry. at worst it's the better default.
I didn't allow life every-time I refused sexual intercourse.... Will that be banned too?
all the extreme obtuseness you can imagine will all be banned. bwah ha ha
a fetus isn't an appendix, no matter how many times you guys try to claim it so.
And a zygote isn't a "baby", "child" or "person" no matter how many times you guys try to claim it so.
Fine, you and the father pay for it.
You’re a raving idiot.
"...the illegitimate SC court"
Perpetually butt hurt over Garland, I see. Regardless, lack of judicial representation of your political faction does not equal "illegitimate."
And fuck Joe Biden with Joe Friday's 4 bit an hour dick.
Quo you ignorant fool, my "political faction" is the majority of presidential voters in the last 7 out of 8 elections with the exception being an incumbent who wasn't elected by voters to be in office the 1st time. 4 out of of the supposed majority on this election were appointed by presidential losers, while 2 of them are in seats stolen from popularly elected presidents - one of them elected twice and the other by the largest number of votes ever.
I'm sure you're fine with this packing until it happens to you and hopefully democrats get the power to do that in the future. Payback is a bitch
The most hilarious thing about you morons constantly harping on "They won the popular vote!!!!!!" is you think that if the rules were changed and the EC was removed people would just continue to vote the same way.
That's one of the more lame excuses I've heard yet for why you Republicans can't get it up to win a presidential vote.
7 out of the last 8. Your Senate "majority" hasn't represented most Americans since 1997 and then just barley. The Democratic senators collected 83 million votes. The GOP senators collected 67 million voter and their tied in the Senate 50-50.
Wow. The Senate isn't supposed to represent Americans. Otherwise, it would be based on the number of Americans. Wow
Don’t worry. As bad as the leader of your regime is doing, there is a good chance that there will be a lot less of you around to vote in the next election. Making it much harder to cheat your way into office.
You’ll have a hard time voting when you and your fellow travelers are buried in a landfill , face down.
The Senate represents the States, not "Americans". The 17th A destroyed that check on Federal Power.
Right; because [WE] MOBS RULE!!! /s
Dear Pregnant Women,
Sell your Individual Souls to the [WE] foundation; because YOU don't own YOU, [WE] own you! /s
Dear newborn mothers,
You don't own You either because WE won't let you kill your crotch goblin.
Since when did killing another *real* person become a part of OWNING one's self?
Oh, so your quibble is that it's not a human until it makes the magical birth canal passage.
Seriously, this is one of the more stupid arguments that pro-abortion people make as there is precious little difference between the fetus inside the woman before delivery and after delivery.
So allow surgical ejection...
Problem Solved.
The fact that the issue of abortion is so contentious only underscores why blanket Supreme Court decisions and "precedents" are not the way to handle it. I'd argue overturning Roe and sending it to the states to decide is already a pretty huge compromise—the constitution has that annoying "right to life" thing in there after all That should apply to everyone regardless of what US state or territory they find themselves in. The "quickening" stuff sounds about as sound as craniology at this point. With modern ultra sound equipment there are "signs of life" as early as 30 days—not to mention what's happening at the genetic level. I wish people would admit to what this is really about—freely fucking without consequences. I'm a real Libertarian so I'm in favor of you freely fucking even if I might disagree with your lifestyle choices. You lose me when you want to cover that up by snuffing out another human life (even if you don't call it a "person" what is it? It's human on some sort of level). People want to pretend like abortion isn't mostly about fucking but of course it is.
Chris, since viability is I think a reasonable quality one should expect in a definition of a baby as opposed to a fetus or embryo, 30 days is not going to cut it for my definition. As medicine advances the viability possibilities - and by viable I would expect that to mean as a complete and functioning human - I can see adjusting for that, but my understanding is that the earliest that can be achieved now is about 5-6 months.
PS If you are successful in getting your reasoning into law, I hope you would accept your responsibility to pay for the results of your limiting choices for another citizen by committing to help pay through taxes for the raising of the child.
"...I hope you would accept your responsibility to pay for the results of your limiting choices for another citizen by committing to help pay through taxes for the raising of the child."
From someone who has worked in hospitals for years, I can tell you there are more people wanting to adopt than there are babies to be adopted. Enough already with your false 50 cent talking points.
Quo, I'm aware of that fact, but as you from your experience should also know, most women who carry a pregnancy to term are not eager to give away their baby at birth. If the state insists on ending the mothers choice, it should willingly and eagerly pay for the results of it having made the choice for her without thereby insisting her role is only as a brood mare. As a tax payer, if these punitive laws are passed which restrict the choices available to citizens, I would happily pay my share as a citizen to enable the state to take responsibility for it's actions.
Both the father and the state should be as responsible for their actions as anti-abortion advocates insist the the woman should be or they are complete scape-goating hypocrites.
Sorry, no. I'm not civically responsible for helping you pay for the child who exists because of you and your partners actions. That being said, I can and do support charitable organizations who's specific mission is to help women in crisis pregnancy scenarios. I'll put my money where my mouth–but I won't be forced to do so. I feel like these are also very Libertarian concepts.
Chris, if you force the woman to follow your moral pronouncements, you should be willing to pay for it. Why am I surprised your not?
Let's see how popular abortion laws would be in places like Louisiana and Mississippi if everyone has to put their money where their mouth is.
We have to pay people off to not commit murder? Ok. How much can you pay me to allow your continued existence?
What "murder"???
You Pro-Life retards spread more propaganda than anyone else.
Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie and Lie some more until your Lie's become truth.
I see the bottom-line.
If a woman engages in immoral behavior she shouldn't ask anyone else to pay for the consequences of her conduct. It's so easy to think stupid; I guess that is what makes modern day liberalism so appealing to the masses?
What des Right to Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness mean though? I would submit that it doesn't have anything to do with abortion and was meant to say people have the right to live their lives without undue interference by the government.
And I think you're right.
BAN LIPOSUCTION NEXT!!!!!
Nobody should have a right to remove unwanted anything from themselves and hide their sin!!! /s
Sincerely,
Gov-Gun Power-Mad Puritan Pro-Life....
Oh; wait... That's not fat it's a "baby" so just allow fetal ejection and everyone will be happy.... Right?, Right??? Yeah.... What "baby"????
Liposuction has unique DNA not just of a person?
You are really struggling here today.
So every transplant is another person that can't be 'owned' by the receiver? Seems your propped up B.S. has holes in it.
Siphoned fatty tissue isn’t sentient.
And a zygote isn't a "baby"
A noun isn't a noun!
Fk you, noun.
Ji-zeus groans....
Rly, what other homo laughed?
Can I make a suggestion? I think we are agreed that killing a sentient being against their will violates the NAP. But it is certain that a blastoma is not sentient. Human fetuses gain particularly human brainwaves at about 5 months, I last heard. So no restrictions on abortions before that point, and no allowance for abortion after. Even if the mother is endangered, one cannot trade one life for another.
"Even if the mother is endangered, one cannot trade one life for another."
That is never going to fly. It even fails by your own argument of not "trading one life for another."
Why is there this en-grained notion that fetal ejection is death???
It kinda rings a bell about not getting gov handouts is death or something.
Because abortion is not ejection, no matter how many times you try to frame it as such?
Awesome!!! There is a consensus.....
Ejections okay at any time...
I could support that.
Draw up the new SCOTUS ruling.
You’re irrational.
Do we know that brain waves, or even brains, are required for sentience? Or even that they're sufficient?
How not? How do you explain miscarriage? Doesnt the body have a higher choice than the brain?
Since when do we ignore the Constitution and consider English common law? Didn’t we rebel against the English and form our own government?
If rights get paid for as the pro choice people want then the government should buy me a gun…. A nice gun.
Yes... Actually; The Nazi-Regime should be destroyed before any further discussion occurs on abortion. Republicans actually had it that way until COVID and Demon-Nazi's took over and changed it. (According to news)... No-one should be forced to support another.
Rights precede the founding. If you just go by what people thought at the founding, at that time in history, then you don't believe in natural rights.
There's nothing natural about rights.
Laws are not natural. They're rules made up by the government. Freedom is natural. There's human nature. That's what rights are based on, so that's why I think there are natural rights.
Read Hobbes Elements of Law
Did they precede the founding far enough to extend to Native Americans?
Are you on break from your glory hole?
I can't believe that's what you call your mother.
What Damon Root gets wrong.
"At the time of the founding, no American state possessed the lawful power to prohibit abortion before quickening because the states adhered to the common law as described by Blackstone and Wilson."
Yet Blackstone is ignored wherever the agenda finds him not useful, for example on the birthright citizenship question.
But even accepting Blackstone, Damon Root is not correct in his statement above. The states would certainly have possessed the power to prohibit abortion before quickening. The common law simply indicates what the default rules would have been.
But if Damon Root is wrong in the way I described above, he's doubly wrong in the implication that the US Constitution or any amendment thereto would have been responsible for dispossessing the states of any such power, or for granting federal judges the power to enforce such a limitation against the States. The idea is simply too ludicrous to take seriously.
ML, you ignore the fact that the court found in Roe that abortion was a constitutional right. The states can not abridge constitutional rights.
It isn’t. Roe was a bad decision based on shaky reasoning. Even your deceased overlord, RBG warned that it was weak. Like your tiny democrat mind. There is no right to an abortion.
Case closed. Figuratively, and soon to be literally.
Yeah... You owning You?? Who heard of such a ridiculous right.
You don't own You; [WE] own you!!! /s
I'm just not sure how you're ever going to own a gun or prevent slavery when your own body is a legal disconnection from you...
You can own a gun but your body just can't. You can be free but your body will be forced to work... I.e. Your mythical creature self can do anything but your *real* body can't.
"That is because the common law did not legally acknowledge a fetus as existing separately from a pregnant woman until the woman felt fetal movement, called 'quickening,' which could occur as late as the 25th week of pregnancy.""
this was the most glaring part of the faulty logic right there. the way they gloss right over the accepted compromise that has existed basically forever. there is a line where the fetus reaches the level of separate individual.... and it has always been pretty close to the general consensus today.
the arguments around abortion tend to be absolutist... either abortions after contractions start or none under any circumstances...
and then most of those who say none under any circumstances soften a bit for rape or incest, while most of the abortion supporters soften to viability.....
and then there is the gradient on both sides on number of weeks that softens and softens to the middle ground that has remained right around the same point for millennia... in historic common law they called it the quickening. the fetus becomes an individual when it begins to act as an individual. it is no coincidence that this happens very close to the 20-24week line that is currently drawn.
the leaked opinion tries desperately to use old common law arguments while ignoring that the current standing of roe is essentially the exact same as those old laws being relied on to do so..... the argument has always been where to draw the line on it being an individual, and the answer has always been around where the law currently sets it. the court had the chance to clarify that point, and take the extreme positions of both sides off the table permanently..... no banning birth control, and no late term abortions.... but principles mean nothing these days.
The inalienable right to fetal ejection....
Not Gov-Gun forced reproduction.
Then there doesn't have to an imaginary line. If it's an individual it can be saved. If it can't be saved it's not. End of story.
i think that is pretty much where most people fall when they say "viability." for some people, that is where the line is. the question is still the same. the current and historical compromise is still the same too.
side note.... that compromise is also around the point the hand wringing becomes a non issue. 90% of abortions happen within the first 13weeks, and only about 1% happen after 21 weeks. the current restrictions just happen to align with the point where women don't want to abort. (i suppose that number might go up as some states declare war on abortion and some women have to get on a plane to get one, and the abortion is delayed as a result.)
This is amazingly bad legal analysis. Is this guy an attorney? State powers were not LIMITED by what was recognized at common law. That is an absolutely ludicrous position. No serious legal authority would ever take seriously an argument that a sovereign state's authority to regulate private behavior extended only as far as courts had created at common law.
Also the idea that "quick with child" means only after fetal movement can be felt is also completely unsupported. He thinks he's being clever noticing a similarity between "quick with child" and "quickening" but there is no actual evidence that the two meant the same thing.
Also ignores that the common law recognized a claim if somebody committed a battery against a pregnant woman and her unborn child died.
They meant EXACTLY the same thing. As does the phrase - the quick and the dead from say the Nicene Creed or Hamlet. The living and the dead.
The word in English goes back to the Old English cwic - meaning animated, lively, alive.
Personally I think the egregiously wrong part of Alito's opinion is that he completely ignores the right to life. When does life begin? When can/must it be protected? When is posterity a constitutional issue?
Roe v Wade may have come up with what Alito thinks are the wrong answers. It may well be true that the judiciary is absolutely the wrong branch of government to decide on that.
But it is beyond stupid and dishonest for Alito to argue that that question is a state level question rather than a fucking obvious federal question.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution.
It’s a state level question.
Sure it was; back in the slavery days....
And Pro-Life runs a direct violation of the 13th Amendment if they want to pretend a fertilized egg is a "baby"...
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.
Where is your evidence the unborn baby agrees with your assessment of the situation?
Where's the "baby"??? What "baby"???
You've all made up mythical creatures in you head can't can't explain why they can't be set free.
I like this post, And I guess that they having fun to read this post, they shall take a good site to make a information, thanks for sharing it to me.
Reason once again upsetting the authoritarian frothers who flood the comment sections.
I like this post, And I guess that they having fun to read this post, they shall take a good site to make a information, thanks for sharing it to me.
https://ijstartca-nnon.com/
It is important to remember that it was the First Draft of the opinion that was released. When I have a document that I'm releasing, I often go through multiple versions.
I'm confident that justices who eventually sign any opinion or dissent will have input and and influence over the final documents. Complaining over a first draft is complaining about something that will never be.
When I version a document it because I have found a better way to express myself, make a subject clearer. Typically a first draft is not just to remove typos and bad grammar, but rather to improve the delivery of the subject.
unless they revise it so much that they say the right to abortion is protected up until you can feel the baby kick (~20-25 weeks)....... the historical standard they are trying to twist to pretend a woman has no real control over her body..... the problems with the opinion go well beyond anything that would be fixed in further revisions.
Damon is right that the burden is on the state to show it has the constitutional power to ban abortion, not the other way around. Moreover, a right does not have to be "fundamental" (in the Glucksberg sense of being "deeply rooted" in history or tradition) to be recognized under the Due Process of Law Clause. Many recognized unenumerated rights fall into this category (Meyer, Pierce, Griswold/Eisenstadt, Lawrence).
The key is distinguishing between a state's stronger police power to protect individual rights v. a state's weaker power to promote a politically favored interest (in this case the admittedly legitimate one of fetal life, as opposed to an illegitimate one like prohibiting contraceptives). The common law history that Damon cites shows that the fetus was not an independent legal person at the time of the Founding, at least not prior to quickening. Thus, states following the common law were not exercising any police power to protect fetal rights prior to quickening, and therefore failed to meet their legal burden.
This history, however, does not preclude (and the 10th Amendment permits) a state from changing the common law and granting fetal personhood, provided that does so properly under its state constitution, which likely requires a constitutional amendment.