It's All About the Jimmy Hats
Rethinking the constitutional defense of reproductive rights after Dobbs via the Ninth Amendment
In 1991 I was in Geneva serving as a technical advisor to the World Health Organization's Global Programme on AIDS. We were chipping away at a task that seemed insurmountable: the exponential growth of the AIDS epidemic. But we knew our strategy—which relied on affordable condoms and clever advertising—could, at least theoretically, work. All we needed was user compliance.
The United States, however, wasn't pulling its weight, despite having plenty of money and technical expertise. Yes, the Centers for Disease Control was moving forward, publishing an article in 1981 about an opportunistic infection affecting immunosuppressed gay men. Four years later, an HIV antibody test was developed. By 1987, even Surgeon General C. Everett Koop had stepped up to the plate, urging that the nation's physicians recommend condom use for sexually active patients.
But most Americans seemed as if they couldn't care less, staying far away from offenses to their Puritan sensibilities. Homosexuality, anal sex, IV drug use, and condoms? Not topics they were eager to help with. It didn't improve matters that the U.S. Supreme Court had recently reaffirmed that criminalizing homosexuality was constitutional in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986).
In Europe, though, I saw billboards that displayed an erect penis wearing a condom. Play safely was the tagline. I was informed not to hold my breath expecting the United States to follow suit. That was not surprising. Condom advertising, in and of itself, was forbidden on the radio, and print ads for them had vanished too. There was also the matter of obscenity law precedent, Miller v. California (1973) in particular. Did billboards of erect penises appeal to prurient interests based on local community standards?
I vented my frustration to Dr. Jonathan Mann, the founder of WHO's Global Programme on AIDS. How can this be? It's a worldwide epidemic! Since when is the truth immoral? Or obscene? And what about our sexual rights?
We have no sexual rights, Jonathan quickly informed me.
That can't be true, I continued. It makes no sense.
Read the Constitution, he said.
I spent the next 10 years studying constitutional law, especially original documents relevant to the Bill of Rights. I dug into the writings of, and correspondence between, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. I also took a deep dive into the relevant Supreme Court cases, eventually writing two books about sexual rights: Sexual Rights in America: The Ninth Amendment and the Pursuit of Happiness (2003) and Romance in the Ivory Tower: The Rights and Liberty of Conscience (2007).
I was now officially a "sexual rights" guy, well aware that the story of legal condom acceptance throughout America could be traced back to Connecticut in the early 1960s. The state's government loathed jimmy hats and every other form of contraception, and its ban on them ended up being reconsidered by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The Court struck down the Connecticut statute because it violated "the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights."
Though the outcome was laudable, the reasoning was disappointing. If inexplicit rights radiate as light emitting from the Bill of Rights, it's easy enough to claim that light can radiate from every other contract, social and otherwise. That, clearly, would damage the value of certainty and clarity one wants from contracts.
This is not to say that I oppose the right to privacy; quite the opposite. I'd argue, instead, that it was self-evident. Justice Arthur Goldberg's concurring opinion in Griswold agreed. The Ninth Amendment, with its call upon the rights retained by the people, he asserted, is more than sufficient to justify the right to privacy. Better yet, it's a rationale anchored in the history and language of the Bill of Rights, not just "emanations" that only this Court appeared to see.
When Justice Goldberg soon left the Supreme Court to become the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in 1965, he seemed to take the Ninth Amendment with him. One notable exception appeared in the opening statement of Roe v Wade on December 13, 1971. Sarah Weddington, the attorney who represented Jane Roe, asked the Supreme Court to affirm a district court ruling that the Texas abortion statute was unconstitutional "because it interfered with the Ninth Amendment rights of a woman to determine whether or not she would continue or terminate a pregnancy."
However, when Weddington reargued Roe v Wade before the Supreme Court on October 11, 1972, she shifted her position to emphasize that the Texas abortion statute improperly invaded a right possessed by pregnant women to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy—a personal liberty embodied in the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause–or more generally, a pregnant women's right to privacy as codified in Griswold.
In either case, that reasoning has drawn to a close, thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision, Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health Organization. According to Justice Samuel Alito, there's no right to abortion since "it is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no basis in the Constitution's text or in our Nation's history."
If one turns a blind eye toward the Ninth Amendment, one might reach such a conclusion, but that's hardly a sustainable rationale. All such facile declarations are premised on the nonexistence of the Ninth Amendment. Perhaps an abridged version of the Constitution was inadvertently circulated among some Justices?
Why the Ninth Amendment?
When James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights, he feared making some rights explicit would make it seem that only those rights demanded respect from government. But many citizens demanded a Bill of Rights, and some state constitutions already had them. Since ensuring ratification of the U.S. Constitution was his first order of business, Madison went along with writing a Bill of Rights. But to cover his own fears, he affixed an additional class of rights—those unenumerated—onto the Bill of Rights to ensure that they were also protected against government interference.
"It has been objected," James Madison proclaimed in a speech before the first Congress on June 8th, 1789, "against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government and were consequently insecure."
How did he remedy this? With the Ninth and 10th amendments. He argued, after doing his best to articulate the specific rights in the first eight amendments, that additional adjustments were necessary to make it clear that enumerated freedoms weren't by any means the whole story of Americans' rights. The Ninth Amendment states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 10th declares that "the powers not delegated to the U.S. government, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Contemplating, say, the East German police state, it seems obvious enough that the right to privacy is central to keeping a people free. There, the Stasi were everywhere, spying and wiretapping everyone and everything. And they were paying your friends, neighbors, and co-workers to spy on you and report your whereabouts regularly.
The right to privacy is the first and possibly the most important right that dictatorships and police states violate. That finding alone should be sufficient to show that the right to privacy is fundamental to a free democracy. Your right to vote, your right to religion, your right to speech and press—and so much more—all depend upon your ability to make decisions in private; have discussions in private; and ultimately exercise all of your constitutional rights, to some degree at least, in private.
So, is the right to privacy an example of a right retained by the people and protected by the Ninth Amendment? Most assuredly so. You don't need penumbra to light the way. And you don't need a civil rights amendment, like the 14th, to come to your rescue either. Madison made sure of that. The Ninth Amendment is one of the original amendments in the Bill of Rights.
The right to privacy, as summoned in Griswold, also has obvious implications for our sexual and reproductive freedoms. But even more basically, the people must retain a right, a freedom that is, to make reproductive choices on their own. It's impossible to even conceive of "the people" without this reproductive right. Reproduction is the biological engine that drives natural selection. Is that a right retained by the people? How could it be otherwise? Must it be granted by a right to privacy? That question seems no less ludicrous than asking about any other fundamental biological process. Do people have a right to physically mature? Grow taller, for example?
That said, a right, like the freedom of speech, is merely held in abeyance until we exercise it by acting on our choices. Consider religion: If we all had to be Catholic, that wouldn't be a freedom to exercise religion. It would be forced religious affiliation. The same is true for the right to make reproductive choices. Though reproduction is intrinsic to our biological nature, if the only way we could exercise this "right" is by engaging in reproductive acts, this would be nothing other than federally mandated reproduction.
How, then, can we exercise the right, as sentient beings, to make reproductive choices? We can either choose to reproduce or not to reproduce. If we choose the latter, how can we implement that choice? Abstinence is one option. But so too is masturbation (sole or mutual), oral or anal sex, the use of contraceptives, and abortion. All of these choices, then, ought to be protected by a Ninth Amendment right retained by the people: the right to exercise our choice of whether to reproduce or not.
What are the practical implications of this understanding for how the law relates to sexual liberties? The right to privacy is circumscribed. Yes, it may be a right retained by the people, but it doesn't provide a sanctuary for doing criminal acts. You can't, for instance, sell heroin in your bedroom and expect to be protected by the right to privacy. Selling heroin is a crime that revokes the right to privacy.
That was basically the argument in Bowers v. Hardwick that reaffirmed the criminalization of homosexuality. As Justice Byron White proclaimed, there is no fundamental right to sodomy. Meaning, in essence, as long as sodomy is a crime, it isn't protected by a right to privacy. And although the ruling in Bowers v Hardwick was overturned in Lawrence v Texas (2003), Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in the latter reaffirmed, once again, that the Court recognized no fundamental right to sodomy.
If our fundamental rights as humans are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, so must be our right to make reproductive choices. It's right there in the Ninth Amendment. Remember that our Founding Fathers were many things, but not prudes; there seems little chance that liberties related to our private sexual behavior would not have been rights they thought government must respect. Benjamin Franklin had a child with a sex worker. Alexander Hamilton wrote an essay about his affair with a Mrs. Reynolds. Thomas Jefferson had long-term sexual relations, which included children, with his slave Sally Hemings. James Madison was either infertile or routinely used contraception with his wife, Dolly, who had children from a previous marriage. Condoms were readily available in the 18th century.
With this in mind, all of the sexuality-related Supreme Court cases, starting with Roe v Wade, can be rethought on new grounds. Not only do women have a fundamental right to privacy, but they also have a fundamental right to choose not to reproduce, including the choice to obtain an abortion. The real question, however, is not the viability of the Ninth Amendment—it's right there in black and white—but why the judiciary has concluded that they can ignore it with impunity, despite taking an oath to perform all the duties incumbent upon them under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
They are likely afraid that explicitly respecting the Ninth Amendment will open up a floodgate of appeals for all sorts of "rights retained by the people." That might be true, but fear doesn't justify denial. The Ninth Amendment does establish fundamental rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. There's no getting around that.
Judge Robert Bork, in his 1987 confirmation hearing for the U.S. Supreme Court, said he just didn't know what the Ninth Amendment meant. He also declared, somewhat contradicting himself, that the Ninth Amendment implies that the enumeration of rights shall not be construed to "deny or disparage rights retained by the people in their State Constitutions." Is that so? Here's what James Madison had to say about state constitutions in his aforementioned speech to the first Congress: "Some states have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper."
Judge Bork's answer made a mockery of any oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment is indeed an integral part of the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers purposely did not enumerate all essential rights because to do so would have invariably minimized every right that had been inadvertently left off that list, or alternatively, every right that only became evident over time. Treating the Ninth Amendment as irrelevant derides both the Founding Fathers and the Constitution itself. My advice for legal scholars, lawyers, and those dedicated to defending and extending our rights is to dig deep into this amendment. Our constitutional rights depend upon it.
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
>>reproductive rights
abortion doesn’t reproduce a fucking thing.
But saying “slaughtering unborn babies” lacks class. Euphemisms make it sound nicer.
Unborn babies
Uncarved statue
Unpainted picture
Unwoven cloth
Unbaked bread
Unexposed photograph
Uncut lumber
So you’re saying that the fetus doesn’t exist, or are you trying to argue that the definition for “baby” doesn’t include an prepartum child?
Because either way you’re wrong.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/baby
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/baby#Noun
I’m saying a “baby” doesn’t exist until it’s born alive. I don’t care what your online “free” dictionaries say. I’m saying a zygote is not a baby, and a blastocyst is not a teenager, and everyone knows that, despite the disingenuous hysterics of the anti-abortion extremists. Words mean stuff.
So its OK to ban abortion after the blastocyst stage?
I mean, if we want to talk about disingenuous hysterics over words meaning stuff, how about people who say things like “zygote is not a baby, and a blastocyst is not a teenager” to defend abortion at any stage of pregnancy?
I’ve said here repeatedly that I think the Roe framework was a reasonable compromise. The fundamentalist anti-abortion zealots have no interest in reasonable compromise.
Please enlighten me as to precisely when a ‘clump of cells’ becomes a ‘baby’.
Oh, wait, you did!
I’m saying a “baby” doesn’t exist until it’s born alive.
I don’t even have to build a strawman, you literally say you’re fine with abortions right up until the last second before they pass out of the magical vagina.
No, I’m not. I will take care of what I have to say, thank you.
You absolutely will, and you will beclown yourself with every word.
I get it, you say that you were ‘fine’ with the Roe V. Wade standard.
Which makes it all the more baffling that you’re working overtime to prove that you either did not understand that ruling or you didn’t agree with it.
You are defining “scatterbrained”.
Except the Roe framework was an overstep of the SCs power. It’s the job of the legislature to make the compromise and pass the law. SCs job is to give the law a thumbs up or down if the law is challenged in court.
Exactly what now is being done at the state level. Agreeing or not with the legislature of your state is a voter issue, again, right where it should be.
Even Roe acknowledged the interest of the fetus, despite its flaws. Feel free to present a new case to SCOTUS based on unenumerated rights.
The dems aren’t that dumb. Any art they haven’t glued themselves to is stupid
saying “slaughtering unborn babies” lacks class.
And accuracy.
transsexuelle sex lille is great web portal for you if you are alone in France
LOL… A “right” isn’t a demand; It’s a choice.
I am currently earning an additional $33,440 over the course of six months from home by utilizing incredibly honest and fluent online sports activities athletics. This domestic hobby provides the month. Given the stats system, I’m currently interacting fast on this hobby’s road and earning,
HERE====)>https://www.pay.hiring9.com
are not fetuses’ sentient beings, sir? It is high time America repudiated the degeneracy pushed by the cultural marxists. Perhaps a more spirted defense first of the 10th amendment which would preclude most of the modern Federal Govt. Before we argue abortion let us shut down all the illegal agencies and the Fed.
Dead babies can never reproduce.
Started off well, but devolved into twisting the constitution and its amendments into what he wanted them to say.
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500.Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.
Read all about it here………>>> onlinecareer1
We also should not notice that AIDS, to this day, is a disease that overwhelmingly impacts homosexual men (currently 70% of all new cases are homoseuxal/bisexual men — impressive for half of the population of a group that contains less than 5% of all people).
I mean, homosexuals overall are about 5% of the population. Lesbians do not really get AIDS at all, so when they say homosexuals get it, they mean men. Almost exclusively.
Pretending that this was ever going to be a pandemic amongst all groups was insane.
Monkeypox!
AIDs outside of blood transfusions and needle drug users was a gay disease spread by anal sex. Once the blood banks were tested, the focus should have been on the gay community addressing promiscuity problem.
And AIDS was getting massive amounts of funding compared to say heart disease (we should have treatments by now to dissolve artery plague).
If one turns a blind eye toward the Ninth Amendment, one might reach such a conclusion, but that’s hardly a sustainable rationale.
Perhaps if the Roe V Wade decision had been based on the 9th amendment, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, but as many now agree, including abortion rights supporters, the Roe decision was a dog’s breakfast.
if the Roe V Wade decision had been based on the 9th amendment, we wouldn’t be having this conversation
That’s probably true, but the Court couldn’t do that, because that decision would have called into question all flagrant government violations of our bodily autonomy, such as drug laws, many “sex crime” laws, mandatory vaccinations, etc. The Court would not open that can of worms.
You may be correct, and the 9th Amendment is, in my opinion a bit of a Rorschach amendment which I kind of agree, could be interpreted to limit all kinds of regulatory strictures we labor under– or even might expand rights in the ‘positive’ realm (ie, Privileges as rights– free healthcare etc) to the point where we collapse under our own weight.
No, the slope is not that slippery. “Positive rights” require a whole definition of what a “right” is to which the authors of the Bill of Rights certainly would not have subscribed.
The slope is every bit that slippery, and arguably more so than you or I can imagine. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Dozens of abortion statutes sat on the books at that time and going forward, unchallenged until 1973 when it was “discovered” within the penumbras and emanations that “Hey, looky here, a right to abortion!” by one of the slipperiest slope *checks to make sure there were no Asians on the court in 1973* courts in modern history.
So if you don’t think a right to healthcare can’t possibly discovered in the 9ths emanations and penumbras, you haven’t been paying attention. You just need the right judges at the right time on the right court with the right lawyers.
Oh, and you don’t have to take my word for it. (pdf warning)
There is an objective test to determine the existence and scope of unenumerated rights.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/702/
“That’s probably true, but the Court couldn’t do that, because that decision would have called into question all flagrant government violations of our bodily autonomy”
As the Constitution “SUPREME LAW” instructs…. The very problem in the USA is that it isn’t the USA anymore…
Thanks to B.S. manipulation of the people’s law over their government by Power-Mad Nazi’s(National Socialists) and Power-Mad Religious Puritans.
Puritan Utopia is just as much of a lost cause as Economic Utopia.
Both are about Gov-GUNS dictating/owning everyone.
If our fundamental rights as humans are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, so must be our right to make reproductive choices.
This is kind of bad tack to be taking. I don’t know of anyone who says we don’t have a right to make reproductive choices… the question at hand is… once you’ve reproduced– or to be precise as I can be here… once you’re well down the road of reproduction, are your rights to make choices to reverse previous choices unlimited? Unfortunately for Mr. Abramson, ~75% of Americans suggest that no, those rights and choices are not— or should not be unlimited. And, as the Roe V Wade decision confirmed, right there in plain black and white, a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy was NOT unlimited, and referred to Jacobson v Mass to drive that point home.
That’s why the Roe v. Wade framework was a reasonable compromise.
Again, a more reasonable compromise might have been deciding Roe on the 9th, instead the decided it on the 14th, which is why so many legal scholars, including RGB winced at the decision.
That’s why I said “framework” and not “decision”.
It should have been decided on the 14th but not the “due process of law” clause. The best choice would have been the “privileges or immunities” clause, but that would have opened a can of worms since that clause was stripped from the Constitution by the Supreme Court in 1873 (Slaughterhouse Cases). Hundreds of subsequent cases would have to be revisited if the privileges and immunities clause was resurrected.
The Ninth Amendment did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment so there was no way, without the 14th, to use it in defense against a state law.
The government has full control over every aspect of our bodies. There is literally not one decision you can make about what to do with your body, what to put in it, what kind of sex you can do with another person, or even how to decorate yourself, without government oversight.
Abortion is literally ONE thing where there is a grey area between “your body” and “not your body” and yet this is what people scream “bodily autonomy!” about.
The uterus is definitely the woman’s body. If a fetus is given a proprietary right to its use that would in fact be slavery.
It really is that simple, yet the fetophiles just can’t see it.
Deliver babies early if women want to terminate pregnancies early. Removing the use of one’s uterus doesn’t give you the blanket right to crush your skull, amputate your limbs, and suck you into a vacuum.
If a fetus is given a proprietary right to its use that would in fact be slavery.
Does this remain true if the actions of the woman invited it in? Is that how slavery works?
It’s bizarre since ultimately I agree with the notion that abortion should be legal within a framework of laws but to see how you idiots rationalize it is honestly terrifying.
How do you “rationalize” it, then?
Now apply that logic to taxation.
If they really cared about “bodily autonomy” then set the BODIES free.
NOT enslave Woman and ?Baby?
SET-FREE Woman and ?Baby?
The government has full control over every aspect of our bodies. There is literally not one decision you can make about what to do with your body, what to put in it, what kind of sex you can do with another person, or even how to decorate yourself, without government oversight.
That’s ridiculous. Our government is bloated and intrusive, but you’re suffering paranoid delusions.
this is what people scream “bodily autonomy!” about.
People who promote liberty “scream” about government intrusions on bodily autonomy all the time, including right here on these pages. Tune in to reality.
Pro-choicers did not seem broken up over vaccine mandates.
You weren’t paying attention, then.
Very much was.
Few people supported them more than pro-abortion folks.
There is a clearly discernible distinction between “her body” and “your body,” despite whack jobs infiltrating the Dems and LP to whoops of delights from Republican National Socialists. This has existed since ratification of the 13th Amendment, which applies to again forcing women to perform as reproductive dams and sex slaves–even under color of TR’s pleas to prevent race suicide or exhortations of papal pederasts unfamiliar with the 19th Amendment. But if demanding girl enslavement will get rid of the Republicans I urge the jerks to demand it loud and clear.
Nobody is demanding “girl enslavement.” They are demanding the irresponsible, take responsibility. That’s all.
Listen to yourself. Girl knows sex results in a baby. Girl voluntarily partakes in irresponsible sex. Makes a baby with father. Then girl says she is “enslaved” when she has to take responsibility?
No.
ctrl + f “individual” = 0
ctrl + f “property” = 0
A true return to the 9th amendment’s meaning would literally eliminate 90% of the federal government. I’m not holding my breath.
Exactly. See my reply to Paul above.
and dont get me started on the commerce clause…
Yup. Them thar Yuropeens sure have it all over us hillbillies.
In one day, an Italian man was diagnosed with monkeypox, HIV, and COVID-19
https://news.yahoo.com/one-day-man-diagnosed-monkeypox-172100474.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall
“R” Party is Our Party is the GOOD party! The Party of the Sex Pistols and the Sex Postals, with which you may R-Party-ON, and go Sex Postal with your Sex Pistol, and rape or deceive ALL the young babes, your “binders full of young women”, whose binders bind them to be womb-slaves, and then MAKE them carry to term, their Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells! All Hail the Every Sperm Which Is Sacred!
Black women in the USA today get abortions at a high rate… “the abortion rate for black women is almost five times that for white women”, from https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2008/08/abortion-and-women-color-bigger-picture . (Hispanics are intermediate here FYI). I’ll get back to this momentarily…
Say the following (which I regard to be true) and many conservatives will immediately agree: We can be OUTWARDLY “compassionate” while harming people. Minimum wages and rent controls come to mind! Of COURSE we are compassionate when we mandate higher pay and lower rent! Yet if we do these kinds of things to ANY significant degree, we “dry up” many of both the available low-wage jobs and the available apartments! Now go be jobless and homeless, ye victims of our “compassion”! Because businesses and landlords don’t want to lose money! Plain and simple!
Then WHY can’t conservatives see the similar dynamic when trying to be “compassionate” with other peoples’ wombs? Sure, we all love babies! But what happens to the victims, not just of “Lying Lothario”, but also of birth-control failures, and of genetic and developmental (in-the-womb) defects? “The rich will get richer, and the poor will have children”! More non-wage-earning babies and children in a family is a straight, unadulterated input contributing to poverty! It’s not what most people desire or admire, sure, but abortion is backup birth control. Our new USA move towards outlawing more and more abortions, in more states, will aggravate poverty among the poor, Blacks, and Hispanics, who can’t afford to travel for abortions, as easily as richer Whites can. We’ll be thwarting the “demographic transition” (https://populationeducation.org/what-demographic-transition-model/#:~:text=The%20Demographic%20Transition%20Model%20(DTM,as%20that%20country%20develops%20economically ) for poor residents of the USA! The rich yank the ladder out from the grasp of the could-be-climbing poor, with abortion laws, just as they do with minimum wages, rent controls, and excessive job-licensing laws!
Yes, they do. You see black women having abortions at a rate much higher than east asian, white, or hispanic women. One should probably ask why. Why is their rate so high, and so many black children denied birth in comparison to east asian, white, and hispanic children?
I’m going to suggest you look at the question, Sqrlsy, and look at it hard. Research it, and come back here with an answer. You might not like what you find.
Black women face a shortage of quality black men because half of the black men are in jail for shucking and jiving and thereby pissing off the judges and the cops. PLUS the black men aren’t good breadwinners ’cause rich fat cats (often whites) protect their interior decorator (etc.) jobs with licensing requirements… And then sneer at the “stupid lazy” poor who can’t afford the 5,000 credit hours to get a license!
And THIS shortage of good black men leaves them (women) vulnerable to “Lying Lotharios” like Hershel Walker! And THEN power pig BASTARDS want to take abortion = “veto power” away from the women! It is THAT simple!
THE “LYING LOTHARIO” PROBLEM: 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: Lying 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, Babe, my One and Only” babes on the side, 4 of them also pregnant by him! So abortion is “veto power” against scumbucket 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 lying men, get a harem of 40 babes, and the rest of the men get nothing (other than caring for the resulting babies)! 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” (abortion-providing doctors, so as to “dry up” the sources for safe abortions), while they have never been in the above-described (lied-to female) shoes! Willfully blind 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” of a sperm donor!
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 your biological offspring), to fend off a HUGE root cause of abortion, and to put your money where your mouth is! And married anti-abortion men? Check with your wives; see if they mind you donating all of your spare time and money to helping out these future unmarried moms! THESE actions will relieve the pressures towards abortions!
Helping out pregnant women till the give birth, and then abandoning the support of said women (immediately or near-immediately post-birth), scarcely substitutes at ALL, for the loving support of a husband or father for 18 years, by the way!
Yes, there ARE fathers who magnanimously raise not-their-children, and do it well! God, Government Almighty, Allah, Zeus, Buddha, Jesus, etc., all please BLESS them, really and truly! And hopefully these fathers will teach their children NOT to be, or to welcome, “Lying Lothario”! Cultural as well as biological evolution can fend OFF the “Lying Lothario” problem! ALL methods need to be brought to bear; this is a SERIOUS problem here!
Abortions outlawed is a “pro-Lying-Lothario” measure, intended (or effectively intended) to turn humans into harem-fighting 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?!?! (Or their interests in passing on their genes, which affect the behaviors of future generations?)
Are we not men? We are devolving! Devolving (especially if we ban abortions as “veto power” for lied-to mothers) into elephant-seal-like beasts, trampling the already-born babies underfoot and underfin, while fighting over mating rights, rather than looking to perform our duties as fathers!
All very reasonable, seriously. So, bottom line, black women need to smarten up. Don’t be suckers.
OK, baby-killer
OK, womb-slave-driver.
What ?Baby???
Set the ?Baby? free!
Yes, this!
“We” (whoever the “we” are in any given case) have the “rights” that we have earned and defended for ourselves. If fertilized egg cells (of ANY species!) want some “rights”, they need to…
‘A) Go out and get themselves a JOB (and also a haircut, but that one’s just a nice-to-have side option), selling goods and services to willing customers!
…and…
‘B) Buy themselves some up-to-date and tastefully-designed weapons with the proceeds of said job! It is NOT all that hard to do!!! (Unless you’re a slacker).
Beyond that, “rights” is just fancy talk for “y’all should be obeying MEEE and MY Opinions on what YOU should and should not be doing!”
The problem with left leaning libertarians is – they want all the freedom, but none of the responsibility.
The core problem with this analysis is the assumption that the authors and adopters of the Fourteenth Amendment were applying the Ninth Amendment, broadly construed, to the states.
Broadly construing the Ninth Amendment against the federal government is a perfectly legitimate exercise. The debates and history around the Ninth and Tenth Amendments demonstrate that they were adopted specifically to make sure the Federal Government would not metastasize into, well, what it actually is today. The truly great obvious failure of the Supreme Court to properly apply the Ninth Amendment is Wicard v. Filburn.
But it is entirely ridiculous to look at the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment and conclude that anyone at the time thought that it was enacting extensive limits on the police powers of the states. The amendment was a command to states that they had to extend existing rights to everyone equally, not an effort to overturn half the statutes of the northern states.
No, the current Supreme Court was entirely appropriate in applying the Fourteenth Amendment in Dobbs. If it wasn’t a privilege or immunity of (at least) most white men in (at least) most states, at the period of the amendment’s adoption, it is entirely outside what the Fourteenth Amendment’s language can plausibly be stretched to cover.
That’s not to say that the proper liberties of human beings are so constrained, but the Constitution is not a libertarian writ.
It wasn’t Wickard v Filburn it was the Slaughterhouse Cases that castrated the Privileges or Immunities clause which absolutely did incorporate the unenumerated rights of the 9th Amendment against the states. Furthermore, the Cruikshank decision allowed the states to refuse to prosecute murderers and restrained the federal government from acting against a gang of murderous white racists who shot black men trying to escape from a burning building.
Wickard was an economic rights case and the Supreme Court had ruled that economic rights did not deserve strict scrutiny, i.e. protection as a fundamental right. This was due to Carolene Products infamous “footnote four” which divided rights into categories of importance.
The elimination of the Privileges or Immunities clause left individual rights in limbo until the court decided to use the Due Process of Law clause to fill the gap in protecting rights that were left homeless by Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank.
What a dance! Refusing to understand your opponent is a cardinal sin. To constantly refer to abortion as “reproductive rights” is further dancing.
I detest laws against abortion as being practically unenforceable, same as speeding tickets and building codes. But to refuse to even call an abortion “abortion”, and to refuse to even hint at opponents who treat it as murder, shows how well you know the weakness of your arguments. To drag in all this 9th amendment history, the history of privacy as a right, and all the rest of this long misleading article, is further proof of how little faith you have in your own argument.
+1
But most Americans seemed as if they couldn’t care less, staying far away from offenses to their Puritan sensibilities.
I can’t speak for the puritans but the reason my sensibilities could not care less is because I made the informed decision not to engage in the type of behavior that would put me at high risk of contracting HIV. Also idiots like the members of ACT UP who insisted on politicizing the problem and demanding someone else pay for the consequences of their actions.
“Yes, it may be a right retained by the people, but it doesn’t provide a sanctuary for doing criminal acts. You can’t, for instance, sell heroin in your bedroom and expect to be protected by the right to privacy. Selling heroin is a crime that revokes the right to privacy.”
Why? Isn’t it part of the notion of “bodily autonomy” to be able to put whatever one wants into one’s body? And why should what happens in a bedroom between consenting adults be illegal?
And any charges in that affect should be thrown out by the courts if that heroin was also retained within one’s bedroom. Just because government has no respect for the people’s law over them doesn’t mean its not the law of the land.
It’s a strange loop. The right to privacy is only really effective against criminal law, but the criminal law makes it inoperative.
Wait, the idiot who spins that also thinks murder is covered by a right to privacy? I could understand doing drugs or selling drugs being coverable since all parties are consenting to the activities and consequences but murder, defininently not.
Yeah; I like to pretend your fingernails are ‘babies’ too and when you clip your nails you’re ‘murdering’ them…..
Either put that ‘person’ into reality by Fetal Ejection or just stop with your imagination running wild to inflict imaginary crimes in your fantasy-land.
Or if you’d like a more direct approach…
If you’re going to be stuffing your body parts inside mine against my will in private and I kill you for violating ME; Don’t be a idiotic retard and run around screaming murder expecting that to be any idea of justice.
There is nothing more *PERSONAL* than one’s self. If you are violating something THAT personal; expect consequences to occur.
Murder, by any definition, is not something to which one “consents.”
Geeesh
That’s not really true at all. Suicide is the perfect example of that.
Or if more than one person actually exists in the scenario it very likely could be considered a mercy killing or assisted suicide.
Fuck you, Reason. Using progressive speak like “reproductive rights” further betrays your fellow traveling and support for a world vision where hedonistic behavior is not just legal but has no consequences. Do “gambling rights” mean no liability for losses? Do “drug rights” mean no personal impacts for mis-use?
Do “dentistry rights” and “teeth-brushing rights” imply a full license to mass-murder your teeth bacteria?
Yes, Mother Nature and-or God have designed nature and our bodies such that too much sugar-eating (and then not brushing your teeth) causes cavities, bearing living bacteria! So the wanton killing of teeth bacteria caused by YOUR irresponsibility should be PUNISHED by denying you access to dentists, and possibly also meting out “capital punishment” to murderous dentists!!!
Murdering plants and animals DELIBERATELY in order to EAT them stops beating hearts and flowing sap!!! STOPPING this utter MADNESS remains essential to establishing the universality of living-being rights!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism … Jain vegetarianism is the Truth and The Way!!! Eat ONLY fruits that have fallen from the tree, lest ye HURT the tree during the picking of the fruit! And do NOT eat the seeds! Eating seeds prevents new plants from being born!
(All of this deep disrespect for universal LIFE inherent in ALL belief systems excluding strict Jain vegetarianism is the root cause of ALL human evils, including genocide, bad haircuts, torture-rape, sloppy housekeeping, and necrophilia!)
NOTHING will get us there (to PROPER life-respect), short of the absolute worshit, not only of recently-fartilized egg smells, but also, of ALL living beings!!! From the cited article about the Jains and their MUCH higher standards than the rest of us, see…
“Strict Jains do not consume food that has been stored overnight, as it possesses a higher concentration of micro-organisms (for example, bacteria, yeast etc.) as compared to food prepared and consumed the same day.”
Bacteria have feelings and rights too, ya know!!!
At the end of the day, SOME things need to be left to us and God, us and our conscience! When ALL “bad” things are outlawed, and all “GOOD” things are mandated, we have ZERO freedoms left! Divorce is bad! Over-eating and getting fat is bad! Do you want to outlaw divorce and getting fat? HOW MUCH POWER do you want and supposedly “need”, power pig? HOW many punishments do you want to mete out? WHY can’t “small government” be acceptable to you?
Your extreme language reveals you to be the self-righteous fanatic that you are! Never, ever, have I said that abortion is a GOOD thing, or that anyone should be forced to have one! It is merely the LEAST BAD thing that people can do, in many different kinds of unfortunate circumstances! And so the law needs to stay OUT of the way!
Imagine that you say: “If I was on the balcony of a skyscraper, and I saw a madman on the balcony of a skyscraper across the street, shooting wildly into the crowd below… And I clearly had NO other method of stopping the madness immediately, then, if I had a rifle or other gun handy, I’d take careful aim, and shoot the madman dead.”
Now do you think it would be a fair accusation for me to accuse you of promoting just going out there, willy-nilly, and shooting other people, whenever we feel like it?
Get a grip… You’re falling victim to self-righteous, no-holds-barred fanaticism!
When they say “reproductive rights” they mean killing unborn babies.
If the left ever legalized murder between adults, they’d call it “conflict resolution rights.”
Don’t kill my baby unicorns in your wife… /s
Roe v Wade was well covered by the 4th and 13th Amendments.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons”
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude …shall exist within the United States”
Giving the ‘Feds’ the duty to protect that right was assured by the 9th and 14th.
[WE] mobs have no Constitutional authority to be playing OWNER of everybody’s pregnancy.
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-GUN FORCED reproduction.
Nobody ever spells Dolley Madison’s name correctly.
Maybe they’re talking about the donuts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_Madison
In 1991 I was in Geneva serving as a technical advisor to the World Health Organization’s Global Programme on AIDS. We were chipping away at a task that seemed insurmountable: the exponential growth of the AIDS epidemic. But we knew our strategy—which relied on affordable condoms and clever advertising—could, at least theoretically, work. All we needed was user compliance.
The United States, however, wasn’t pulling its weight, despite having plenty of money and technical expertise. Yes, the Centers for Disease Control was moving forward, publishing an article in 1981 about an opportunistic infection affecting immunosuppressed gay men. Four years later, an HIV antibody test was developed. By 1987, even Surgeon General C. Everett Koop had stepped up to the plate, urging that the nation’s physicians recommend condom use for sexually active patients.
Dude, your globalism’s showing. Go die in a nuclear war in Eastern Europe, asshat.
We don’t let landlords kill their tenants when they want to sell the property.
You don’t get to kill the baby just because you changed your mind about inviting it in.
So just evict them….
For F’Sakes you Pro-Lifers twist and turn every which way to excuse your Gov-GUN FORCED reproduction desires.
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom. (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-GUN FORCED reproduction.
You are completely full of shit. If you have sex, you may get pregnant, this isn’t an invasion of the woman’s body. It’s a free choice that was made. The fetus isn’t your fingernails, it has a unique DNA, it will become a human if left unaborted.
It’s like you have created your own storm and then bitch when you get rained on. I am not pro-life, I am pro-intelligent argument, so opposed to pretty much anything you post.
“it will become a human if left UN-aborted”
YOU SAID IT ————– GOV-GUN FORCED REPRODUCTION….
Next on the list; Gov-Gun ‘murder’ charges for masturbation.
You have a seed and now the Gov-Guns will be sure it grows into a tree.
You know what else has “unique DNA”? Organ Transplants…
I guess the Gov-GUNS gets to OWN everyone with transplants too?
The good ole “The Science” dictation….
Why if the imaginary religion of “unborn babies” was simply replaced by “climate change emergency and death” Pro-Life would be 100% representative of a leftard.
“No one here, left or right, or fake libertarian, would argue an organ transplant is a human life.”
Why???? Because it can’t ‘live’ on it’s own behalf???
How’s that any different than ‘unborn babies’ who don’t self-sustain???
You have ‘beliefs’ you don’t have ‘science’ and you don’t have ‘reality’.
UR trying to legislate ‘beliefs’.
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal ejection)
UR supporting Gov-GUN FORCED reproduction…
That is BLATANT UNDENIABLE reality.
Fetal ejection doesn’t require killing the baby.
Deliver them early. Charge the biological parents for the costs of NICU care.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The ‘belief’ induced Gov-GUN dictation narrative is just a scape-goat for [WE] mob RULES Power-Hungry people trying to wield Gov-GUNS against those icky people. A foreign (treasonous) form of governing that Leftards have brought/conquered the USA with.
If a tenant steadfastly refused an eviction order, and attempted to defend himself against it, at some point the police would escalate to the use of deadly force to enforce it.
Really? Weird how we didn’t see that during the super recent eviction moratorium.
One wonders if you even watch the news, let alone understand it.
We didn’t see it because there were no eviction orders. Are you able to think at all?
This is the mentality that looks at empty space and imagines a naked Baby Jesus where there is nothing at all detectable by any of the four forces of nature. To such damaged epistemology, an egg is a chicken, bigger’n Dallas, because the televangelism channel told the cretin to believe it. That in turn justified Robert Dear attacking a clinic in Colorado and murdering several people–including a cop. This same girl-bullying mentality, incidentally, is what the Mises Caucus wants to run for president of the USA.
To such damaged epistemology, an egg is a chicken…
Yet the government makes killing eagle eggs a crime. Turtle eggs a crime. I guess an eagle egg is an eagle.
The real question here is – When is it immoral to purposely take a human life. If you clubbed your born baby in the head, you would be arrested immediately and imprisoned. None on the left would even bat an eye over it. Obviously from these actions, a baby is precious and sacrosanct. It is expressly forbidden, culturally, philosophically, legally, to kill this baby. So precisely when during it’s gestation, is it no longer precious or sacrosanct? This is the question. The answer proposed by the left is completely illogical and unreasonable. They say a baby can be killed all the way up until birth. The right isn’t buying it.
But is the 9th effective against state laws? From its wording it looks pretty clear to me that it’s about rights as against the national government only — because how could the enumeration of certain rights as opposed to the national government have ever been construed to disparage any retained by the people as against their state government? I could see it being used against any federal anti-abortion statute, but not a state one, and that’s what’s been at issue all along. So it still comes down to the 14th, and not the wimpy “due process of law” bogosity, but the part that says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
I’ve noticed the same. The Civil War wrote some vague worded amendments when the ‘Feds’ ended slavery concerning federalism. Humorously, when the States wrote their Constitutions for union acceptance, everyone I’ve read mimics the Bill of Rights so you might want to check said State’s Constitution before getting all excited about State forced reproduction.
I’m of the opinion that any justice who dismisses Women from the rights and privileges of all people (To be secure in their persons/right to privacy) using silly excuses like ‘potential life’ isn’t honorable enough to be a sitting justice in the first place.
Throwing out one’s ability to OWN themselves entire puts FORCED organ donation on the books. Is that really the goal you pursue?
Very good observation. Thank you. Immunities is indeed the proper form for the sort of negative rights the LP used to defend before 1980 capitulations.
Austin’s Constitution expert, Jon Roland, wrote a sci-fi novel, Wayward World, in 2017. In it he traces events that slowed or accelerated the slow progression toward a rule of law that enforces individual rights and immunities. It is a valuable sifting of past history for the kind of nuggets that led to the Bill of Rights. It is inexpensive on Amazon Kindle 24/7.
“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?
Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings. — Ayn Rand
I reject her notion that the unborn is “nonliving”. Also, she smoked way too much.
Great. YOU can decide.. You don’t get to decide for everyone else.
Rights are inherent…
As long as that ?baby? has no *inherent* right to life by gods own will; It’s not *entitled* to one by enslaving Women.
Your “belief” falls apart because it’s the same as Gov-GUN forced organ donation for anyone in ICU needing someone else’s body organs. Only ‘freaks’ pretend someone else “murdered” their child because another refused to donate their body organs to save it.
That’s not the kind of Gov-GUN usage the USA needs to entertain.
‘Is that so? Here’s what James Madison had to say about state constitutions in his aforementioned speech to the first Congress.” It escapes abramson in his attempt to smear bork, states have changed rather a lot since the 1st Congress. This entire piece is based on the same type of biased, skewed opinion. The author views issues through a lens, thus that any viewpoint observed through that lens and accepted by the author is fact. The author wrote a book, thus is an expert on constitutional amendments, not a psychologist w/ an ideological axe to grind -or so one is to believe. Weren’t there a slew of pieces over the last few days in reasonmag about conservatives running on big gov agendas being evil? Pushing federal control of individual health choices is… big government.
Go to https://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/ and search for abortion. Jon Roland like Abramson in this article, states that the 9th Amendment is the proper defence against girl-bulliers infiltrating parties or the courts. “The Supreme Court was hearing on appeal a case decided for the plaintiff (Roe), on the grounds that she had a Ninth Amendment right, incorporated on the states, to decide whether and how many children to have. That decision was correct, and the reasoning was correct. The Supreme Court should have just affirmed the decision, and the opinion, of the Fifth Circuit. Instead they took the case, and then struggled to find another way than the Ninth Amendment, to reach the same conclusion. The result was an exercise in sophistry. There is no good way to avoid the Ninth Amendment, to which there is intense opposition in the legal mainstream.”
Although I agree that government should make no law forbidding abortions for a consenting adult, saying that the Fourteenth Amendment isn’t necessary is like saying that states cannot forbid murder because the Ninth Amendment protects the retained right of the people to kill. This is a very shaky foundation upon which to build a legal principle. In order to retain a right you first have to HAVE that right, so you are faced with an endless string of appeals trying to prove that you had a right to start with that a law is trying to eliminate. The assumption that you start out with a right to do – or fail to do – anything and everything and that only a few of those rights can be taken away from you by law begs a definition of when the government has the authority to forbid – or require – your action. It simply pushes the argument further down the block without settling anything. Although the presumption of an unenumerated list of retained rights, forcing the legislators to prove their authority to outlaw one, is certainly important, it doesn’t settle the issue here. Why do you have a right to kill your unborn baby, and why is murder illegal but abortion is not? What principle is at work here? Murder is not the same thing as justifiable homicide (e.g. self-defense) so in what way is abortion a justifiable homicide? In the sense that everyone has a presumption of privacy, the exception for government is reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime, and probable cause to issue a search, so medical confidentiality applies, but only if abortion is not illegal, so no help there. I think the author will have to come up with more convincing arguments than his desire that the Bill of Rights means what he wants it to mean before the issue can be settled by the Supreme Court once and for all. Until then our First and Second Amendment rights were extended to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment and we should not be quick to dismiss it.
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500.Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.
Read all about it here………>>> onlinecareer1
And this is why you don’t invite a psychology professor to opine on constitutional law. I don’t think I saw a single actual legal argument in the entire piece.
Murdering someone in private doesn’t magically make it not murder.
Your reproductive choice ends where someone else’s life has already begun.
Murdering unicorns isn’t a crime.
Get over your self-induced imaginary crimes.
If you want it to be “someone else” set it free!
Pro-Life in a nutshell…
We’d like to charge parents with ‘murder’ if they don’t donate their body parts to save their children….
“Its for the Children don’t you know..” /s
Yes; that is exactly what Pro-Life is stating.
Gov-GUN enforced organ donation.
“Though living is intrinsic to our biological nature, if the only way we could exercise this “right” is by engaging in self-sustaining acts, this would be nothing other than federally mandated existence.”
Middle school level sophistry.
There is so much wrong with that simple paragraph I honestly can’t even begin to unpack it within the character limit of the comment board.
I’ll just tell the author to take a page out of the gay playbook and only have ass sex because last I checked you don’t have a baby that way. What a fucking idiot.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Blastocysts are babies.
Where’s the Laughing Face emoji?
That happened in some cultures in the past. If a child was born malformed it would be left out to die. During WW2 some women gave birth and left the baby to die because they couldn’t take care of it and survive themselves.
It’s funny how Pro-Lifers constantly insist..
“If “reproductive” rights encompass the decision to dispense with the lives of others”
When that just isn’t the situation at all…
Fetal Ejection is just separating lives.
That was the name of my punk band in college.
As the post-modern social Marxists have told us over and over.
Science = Useless ideas abou unicorn farts and gendered thetan nonsense meant to undo language and logic back past Ancient Greece.
Was it Hank Philips that was incessant with the “MUH COMSTOCK LAWZ!”? This is what that felt like.
And under extreme circumstances, I would say that is morally defensible.
The fetus has no right to seize the mother’s body for it’s own benefit, even if that means it will not survive.
Exactly… If a person gets chopped to pieces in a car accident to the point they require 90% of their organs transplanted from another person…………
Then… 1) Its not reasonable to run around screaming ‘murder’ when they die. 2) It’s not reasonable to start chopping up others ‘unviable’ parts to save that life. 3) Almost all non-freaks would say; they’re dead already.
The the most DISCUSTING thing about it. If any life-saving support is to be supplied it should be at the decision of *immediate family* not a bunch of self-righteous Power-Mad [WE] mobs who can’t keep their BIG-FAT Power-Mad NOSES out of other people’s *PERSONAL* pregnancies.
‘The fetus’ isn’t the one that seized the mothers body for it’s own benefit, the mother invited it in. You can tell this is true because ‘the fetus’ did not exist before she did so.
But please, keep up the sophistry to try and justify your end goal. It’s amusing to watch people work out moral problems in reverse.
She signed that contract when she made the whoopie.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply (ygf-06) by doing a simple job online! i do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
You can tell this is true because ‘the fetus’ did not exist
Uh, no. That statement is NOT true for that reason. Because it never existed outside, it was never “invited in”.
In Afro-American mythology, there were supernatural creatures called “jelly babies” that were the result of anal impregnation.
Maybe that’s why they abort so many babies compared to any other demographic. I mean, I assume you’re trying to connect the dots here instead of just being a living non-sequitur.
It is absolutely true for that reason, but maybe it looks that way because you don’t understand how analogies work.
Because it never existed outside, it was never “invited in”.
You are trying to deflect the point, that it was created inside, and for the vast majority of cases, by actions the mother voluntarily partook. It doesn’t need to be “invited in.” It’s creation was invited when the mother and father partook in actions they, were well aware of, could result in it’s creation, inside.
You must be a blast at parties.
Learn to think.
Babies are clumps of cells until we can see them.
Blastocysts might not be a baby, but they are a human life. And that is what the argument is all about.
When does it become immoral to purposely kill that life. That is the question. That has always been the question. Especially because of SCIENCE, not religion. 2000 years ago they didn’t fully understand the process. Science and our expansion of knowledge filled in that gap. And now that we know, the moral person acknowledges that the religious texts were “lacking.” Muslim texts said life began with first breath. But that’s BS. Science proves otherwise. Let’s not be science deniers. Use reason and logic. But a gap still exists. When is killing it murder? Hopefully, that gap too will eventually be filled. In the meantime, I’m taking a strict approach, and avoiding abortions.
There are no such extreme circumstances anywhere in the US. Not even close.
Does this excuse men from any and all child support?
It seems that reproductive rights, and the ability to arbitrarily discharge without consequence the responsibilities of parenthood, are being unfairly limited to only one of the sexes.
With whom? Can you show us an example of such a contract?
And just a never-mind to that imagined assumption that no-one can kick out someone they did invite in… Massive analogy fail.
“What are you doing in my house!”
“But, but you invited me last week. You can’t complain or kick me out.”
You purposely dodged the point, and then told others to “learn to think.”
It’s right there in fairy-fantasy land with all the ?babies? LOL… 🙂
The same contract someone who is insulin resistant makes when they eat that sugary snack.
The natural consequences of biology are the contract of the universe.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> ???.????????.???
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> ???.????????????.???
You tried ridicule, but it wasn’t a refutation.
Even if a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy at any time, that doesn’t give her the right to kill the child. Any possibly viable child should be attempted to be delivered, live, and the costs for required NICU care should be paid by both the biological mother and father (just like child support).
If it’s “created” then let it out….
It’s funny how you talk about “invited” in but Pro-Life is the one trying to use Gov-GUNS to prevent it from leaving.
Since when did nature pack around Gov-GUNS?
I have a better idea. How about Gov-GUNS implants cancer in every smoker??? Or heck; Just BAN cancer treatment for smokers…
You Pro-Lifers are so ‘cult warrior’ locked up you don’t even realize how psychotic you sound.
Just gotta love those Gov-GUNS!!! MORE, MORE, MORE Gov-GUNS.