This is pretty much the problem with Scalia’s reasoning. The right to procreate is not deeply rooted in our history and tradition. You generally agree that the “deeply rooted” test is the starting point of the fundamental rights test, but Scalia thinks it’s the end.
Abortion can be self defense for a woman, just as a war can be self defense if another country strikes first. Self preservation is a basic right for all humans, even women. Sould carrying a fertile egg to frutation in a woman who is not healthy enough, in a good mental state(Consider women who have had post partum depression that have killed all her offspring)who has children in a country where the children are(as well as the mother) starving to death. Even Jesus made exceptions to the law!
Many unborn and born innocent lives are taken, and when at war it is a known fact that some innocent beings will die! That is also “Life” of innocent people.
Abortion can’t be considered self-defense unless the woman was raped. Otherwise it is like inviting someone in as a roommate and then shooting them for trespassing.
Regards,
Shodan
I think that analogy doesn’t hold up. Most women seeking abortions didn’t intend to become pregnant. So they didn’t “invite” the foetus inside.
Pregnancy was an unintended consequence of the act of having sex. An analogy would be that cancer is an unintended consequence of smoking cigarettes. But we don’t tell smokers they have to accept the consequence of cancer because they made the decision to smoke. And we shouldn’t tell women they have to accept the consequence of pregnancy because they made the decision to have sex.
Pregnancy is a natural consequence, or inherent risk, or however you want to put it, of sex.
That’s because a cancer is not a child.
A better analogy might be “I wanna get divorced, but I don’t wanna pay child support.”
If you believe an unborn fetus is a human being, you cannot argue self-defense if you consented to the act that created it.
You meet someone, and tell them “drop over anytime”. Two weeks later, they show up on your doorstep. You shoot them and argue self-defense.
IYSWIM.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s a pretty big if. And I’d say that having sex with protection is like locking one’s doors. Anyone who gets in anyway is an intruder.
A zygote or a blastocyst are NOT “Children” either…Heck it isn’t until past week 25 where the nervous system can even control any body functions or even have reflexes. It could be argued that many tumours have more “feeling”.
Heck for many who have followed the god of Abraham a child was not one until 3 days AFTER birth.
It is self defense if it means her life, health, or the welfare of her family means a mouth to feed that they cannot afford, like in cases in some third world countries.If a woman doesn’t invite a potential being that will cause her or her family harm, it is the same as an intruder in her home, one she didn’t invite. That is why every woman who doesn’t want to have a child should be given protection such as a reliable Birth Control or the morning after pill.
It is not my busnisess (or yours) what another woman does or can’t do with her own body.Only she and her doctor can know what she can or can’t handle. Because I wanted 9 children doesn’t mean I can tell another person what they should do, and if one is so worried about a fertile egg,(which now can be frozen safely) they should put their money where their mouth is, and be willing to supply, food, shelter, medical care and education to the child. But too many or (maybe even most) who claim to be interested in Life, should step up and walk the walk instead of talking the talk, and stop trying to push their religious beliefs on another.Nor should a woman be forced not to have a child if she desires one,that is if she is responsible, and looks ahead to the child’s welfare.
I understand your argument, but it doesn’t work.
Suppose I have an eight year old daughter. She gets into a car accident and is paraplegic and brain-damaged. She has to be spoon fed for the rest of her life. Financially and emotionally, I can’t afford to care for her - too much stress. By your argument, I can shoot her in self defense, because I didn’t consent to the consequence of caring for a disabled child.
We’ve done this one a thousand times. Pro-life groups to assist women so that they don’t have abortions are thick on the ground. They are walking the walk.
Regards,
Shodan
You can go to court and give up your parental rights or petition to have the child legally killed. Pregnant women do not have that option.
NOBODY should have the right to use your body without your permission.
How do “pro-life” groups help women, other than forcing them to give birth to unwanted children. Do they take care of the children in foster care? Do they sponsor any groups that help women who are suffering after they are forced to give a child up for adoption?
You’re making several separate arguments here and lumping them all together.
One argument is you should accept the consequences for what you do. I’ve already addressed that, but to repeat myself, I don’t think there’s any consensus that a person has to accept all consequences for what they do.
The second argument is intent. What counts as intent? I don’t think we’ve met the standard here. A person having sex generally doesn’t intend or expect to become pregnant just as a person lighting up a cigarette doesn’t intend or expect to develop cancer. And in both cases, they’re right - women usually don’t become pregnant and smokers usually don’t get cancer. So these consequences are foreseeable but they’re not inevitable. So choosing the act is not equivalent to choosing the consequence.
The third argument you’ve now raised is a completely separate one - that a foetus is a person and is therefore due the same rights as other people. That is a distinction that separates abortion debates from debates about smoking or most other questions.
The problem with this argument is you’re essentially begging the question. Your argument would be valid if your premise is valid. But there’s no consensus on that premise. People do not all agree that a foetus is a person. There are valid arguments to be made that a foetus is a person. But there are also valid arguments to be made that a foetus is not a person. I don’t think we’ve achieved the moral certainty on this issue where we can impose our decision on everyone. It’s an issue that still has to be left to the individual conscious.
I’m not sure that anyone really believes a foetus is a person. We hear this claim in the context of abortion, but not in other contexts. I don’t hear anyone arguing that citizenship rights under the 14th Amendment should be based on place of conception (even assuming that could be proven), or that the “population” under the census should include foetuses or that every miscarriage should figure into the general mortality rate. The logical consequences of treating foetuses as persons would be extremely far-reaching, and it doesn’t seem to me that anyone *really *wants to go there.
Your daughter would be already born, and thanks to medical research there may be a time she can be helped, she now is a member of society, not dependent on the life of her mother. There is very little care given by so called pro-lifers, pro_choice people care more for the already born(or at least as much) as those who want to force a woman to put her life in danger, or the welfare of her other children(in some cases,such as in countries like in Africa where mother’s and children starve to death or live in dire poverty like in Haiti). It is better to prevent a pregnancy to begin with, but many women are afraid through fear of sinning taught to them by their particular religious beliefs. If the pro-life (so called) people, woud be providing enough then all born Children would not be in poverty. No child would be hungry, abused etc. That is not the case, they spend more money running around the country, trying to tell another person how they should live than contributing the time,care, and money to the one’s they don’t do now!
A couple of points:
-
No way in hell would the Court today uphold Buck v. Bell. It’s just one of those old cases that is a footnote of history that would have no more precedential value today than Plessy.
-
Even if you uphold Buck v. Bell, one would be hard pressed to argue that procreation among healthy people in a marriage is not deeply rooted in our history and tradition.
-
You obviously disagree that the “deeply rooted” test cannot be the end of the analysis, and I would assume adopt the living constitution argument. When you do that, there is no end to the number of “rights” that are created out of thin air. That turns the Supreme Court into a super-legislature deciding rights based on personal opinion instead of being rooted in the constitution.
If liberals cared about the right of privacy, why are they now in California banning smoking in people’s private homes?
I’m liberal and I think that’s completely wrong if it’s true.
I’ve never heard of it (banning smoking in private residences that is).
Didn’t know it applied to multi-unit buildings.
I’m actually OK with it in that case. I consider it akin to disturbing the peace, you can’t jam War Pigs at 3:00 am either.
Should someone be allowed to have an oven or a deep fryer in a multi unit building?
I see the right to privacy means so much to you.
Kill your child if it’s inconvenient, but you cant choose to smoke in your own home.
The libby concept of “choice” is limited to anal sex and ab ortion as birth control.
Since you already started another thread on the smoking issue why don’t you link to it and we can discuss it there. Fair enough?