3 ms·

A law isn't enough as it will be in conflict with the consitution. A constitutional amendment is required. To get enough Senate votes to pass a constitutional

A law isn't enough as it will be in conflict with the consitution. A constitutional amendment is required. To get enough Senate votes to pass a constitutional amendment, you're looking at 75% of the country voting for Democrats. Not going to happen. The Senate imbalance is ridiculous.

jaywalk 4y ago
The ruling said that the Constitution does not grant the right to abortion. It did not say that it denies the right to abortion.
nybble41 4y ago
> you're looking at 75% of the country voting for Democrats A constitutional amendment ought to have support from more than one party, not just Democrats. You might be able to get that if you took a more oblique approach, for example with an amendment explicitly upholding the natural right to control over one's own body, as opposed to one narrowly focused on allowing abortion.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  People would argue that your natural right of control over your own body would be in conflict with the baby's right of control. Now we're back to square 1 where we're debating the limits of abortion and nothing has changed.
  - nybble41 4y ago
    The fetus clearly has no right to control the mother's body, only its own[0]. Extricate it without otherwise injuring it and see if it can survive on its own, or with whatever degree of medical intervention the "pro-life" crowd is willing to pay for. [0] Assuming fetuses had rights, of course, which is obviously absurd. That requires the capability for deliberate action and the ability and willingness to take responsibility for the effects of your actions on others. Without that you may be alive and biologically "human" but you're still more an animal than a person--at any age.
    - fzeroracer 4y ago
      It's not 'obviously absurd' because a significant amount of the pro-life people pushing the anti-abortion rhetoric believe no abortion should be allowed and that all fetuses have rights, period. Like the fact that this debate still exists even after this constitutional amendment supposedly crosses both aisles does not fix the problem at all.
      - nybble41 4y ago
        The point was that even if you take the absurd position that fetuses have rights, a constitutional right to bodily autonomy would--among other things--make it obviously unconstitutional to force the mother to continue to serve as a host against her will.
        fzeroracer 4y ago
        Again, they would simply either argue that the rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the mother, or that even though the mother has a right to bodily autonomy she would be committing murder and could still be put on trial for murder. These are lines of arguments they already use. A constitutional right to bodily autonomy doesn't change the math at all.
        nybble41 4y ago
        > argue that the rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the mother The whole point of the amendment is to make it explicit that they don't. That isn't how rights work anyway; it's never a matter of priority, one right vs. another. Any positive action which would infringe on someone else's rights is forbidden, including in particular using someone else's property, including their body, without their consent. But merely not doing anything for them--non-action--is always an option. The fetus is the one taking from the mother--that's the action. The mother merely wants this to stop. There is no conflict of rights. The fetus's rights, such as they are, are not being infringed. > even though the mother has a right to bodily autonomy she would be committing murder This line of argumentation would prove far too much. Refusing to serve as someone else's life support system is not murder. And again, the point of the amendment would be to make that explicit.

jaywalk 4y ago

The ruling said that the Constitution does not grant the right to abortion. It did not say that it denies the right to abortion.

nybble41 4y ago

> you're looking at 75% of the country voting for Democrats A constitutional amendment ought to have support from more than one party, not just Democrats. You might be able to get that if you took a more oblique approach, for example with an amendment explicitly upholding the natural right to control over one's own body, as opposed to one narrowly focused on allowing abortion.

fzeroracer 4y ago
People would argue that your natural right of control over your own body would be in conflict with the baby's right of control. Now we're back to square 1 where we're debating the limits of abortion and nothing has changed.
- nybble41 4y ago
  The fetus clearly has no right to control the mother's body, only its own[0]. Extricate it without otherwise injuring it and see if it can survive on its own, or with whatever degree of medical intervention the "pro-life" crowd is willing to pay for. [0] Assuming fetuses had rights, of course, which is obviously absurd. That requires the capability for deliberate action and the ability and willingness to take responsibility for the effects of your actions on others. Without that you may be alive and biologically "human" but you're still more an animal than a person--at any age.
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    It's not 'obviously absurd' because a significant amount of the pro-life people pushing the anti-abortion rhetoric believe no abortion should be allowed and that all fetuses have rights, period. Like the fact that this debate still exists even after this constitutional amendment supposedly crosses both aisles does not fix the problem at all.
    - nybble41 4y ago
      The point was that even if you take the absurd position that fetuses have rights, a constitutional right to bodily autonomy would--among other things--make it obviously unconstitutional to force the mother to continue to serve as a host against her will.
      - fzeroracer 4y ago
        Again, they would simply either argue that the rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the mother, or that even though the mother has a right to bodily autonomy she would be committing murder and could still be put on trial for murder. These are lines of arguments they already use. A constitutional right to bodily autonomy doesn't change the math at all.
        nybble41 4y ago
        > argue that the rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the mother The whole point of the amendment is to make it explicit that they don't. That isn't how rights work anyway; it's never a matter of priority, one right vs. another. Any positive action which would infringe on someone else's rights is forbidden, including in particular using someone else's property, including their body, without their consent. But merely not doing anything for them--non-action--is always an option. The fetus is the one taking from the mother--that's the action. The mother merely wants this to stop. There is no conflict of rights. The fetus's rights, such as they are, are not being infringed. > even though the mother has a right to bodily autonomy she would be committing murder This line of argumentation would prove far too much. Refusing to serve as someone else's life support system is not murder. And again, the point of the amendment would be to make that explicit.