4 ms·

Everyone agrees that the right to privacy is in the constitution. Disagreement is if right to abortion comes from right to privacy. I don't see how it does. Be

by 99_00 4y ago

Everyone agrees that the right to privacy is in the constitution. Disagreement is if right to abortion comes from right to privacy. I don't see how it does. Because the constitution doesn't explicitly mention abortion it falls on those who see it as a constitutional right to show their work. Especially since abortion has historically been illegal especially after the baby's first movement. So I wonder, why do you think the right to abortion stems from the right of privacy?

john-radio 4y ago
> So I wonder, why do you think the right to abortion stems from the right of privacy? Because that is what the ruling in the case of Roe vs. Wade was, so it's been precedent in the United States for almost 50 years that the right to an abortion explicitly results from the right to bodily privacy. > Everyone agrees that the right to privacy is in the constitution. The recent Supreme Court ruling asserts that the right to privacy is not in the constitution.
- 99_00 4y ago
  >Because that is what the ruling in the case of Roe vs. Wade was, so it's been precedent in the United States for almost 50 years that the right to an abortion explicitly results from the right to bodily privacy. Your argument appears be that precedents should never be overturned. If that's correct, your argument is obviously bad on the face of it. If that's wrong, I wonder what your argument actually is.
lakhim 4y ago
You could read Roe instead of asking?
matthewmacleod 4y ago
I mean, you can just refer to the Roe v. Wade judgement to understand the Supreme Court's view on why that is the case.
- charrondev 4y ago
  But Roe v. Wade (and abortion being protected under a right to privacy) was changed
  - matthewmacleod 4y ago
    Right, but the argument for why one would consider it to be protected is clearly spelled out in the original court case – regardless of any subsequent ruling.
- 99_00 4y ago
  And you can refer to Dobbs to understand the Supreme Court's view on why it isn't the case.
  - matthewmacleod 4y ago
    You asked why somebody would think that the right to privacy is applicable in this situation. There is ample material describing why they might think that, including a Supreme Court judgement. It's not a difficult position to understand, regardless of whether you believe that view or not. The existence of other material, including a later judgement, supporting the view that this isn't the case does not invalidate other views.
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
(In the region known as the United States of America,) Abortion has actually historically been legal until the baby's first movement, which is four or five months. It's only fairly recently where things like banning abortion before pregnancy is even visible was implemented.
- throwaway1777 4y ago
  Such a blanket statement is false. Different countries and cultures have “historically” had very different rules around abortions.
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    Okay, let me edit my post to clarify that I'm speaking in the country where this discussion is happening, because it's about the supreme court decision of a specific country, lol.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> Everyone agrees that the right to privacy is in the constitution. That is demonstrably not true. Robert Bork may be dead, but many folks still believe what he said, which was that the Constitution does NOT guarantee a general right to privacy. Thomas specifically argued that the court should also look at overturning the right to contraception, private consensual sex, and gay marriage specifically because the same privacy right underlies those rulings.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  One more thing to add the above comment. The ruling in Loving v Virginia, which is what allows interracial marriages like Thomas' to exist in Virginia in the first place, is also based on substantive due process (which is what underlies the privacy right in all these cases). Quite conveniently, Loving v Virginia was not one of the rulings that Thomas argued needed revisiting.
  - delecti 4y ago
    Loving v Virginia is based both on due process and equal protection. He's not necessarily a hypocrite to be against Loving but not Roe. But he did call out Obergefell, which is also based on equal protection, so he is very much a hypocrite for calling out that but not Loving.
kennywinker 4y ago
Historically, abortion has been more often legal than illegal. It was made illegal in the period from 1847 to 1880, and stayed that way until 1973 (roe v wade). Of the 246 years since the declaration of independence, abortion has been fully legal for 120 years, illegal in a patchwork of states for 33 years, and illegal fully for 93 years. A good twitter thread with some fun re-framing of the history of abortion: https://twitter.com/jskilesskinner/status/1541164143314714625 https://twitter.com/jskilesskinner/status/154116414331471462...

by 99_00 4y ago

john-radio 4y ago

> So I wonder, why do you think the right to abortion stems from the right of privacy? Because that is what the ruling in the case of Roe vs. Wade was, so it's been precedent in the United States for almost 50 years that the right to an abortion explicitly results from the right to bodily privacy. > Everyone agrees that the right to privacy is in the constitution. The recent Supreme Court ruling asserts that the right to privacy is not in the constitution.

99_00 4y ago
>Because that is what the ruling in the case of Roe vs. Wade was, so it's been precedent in the United States for almost 50 years that the right to an abortion explicitly results from the right to bodily privacy. Your argument appears be that precedents should never be overturned. If that's correct, your argument is obviously bad on the face of it. If that's wrong, I wonder what your argument actually is.

lakhim 4y ago

You could read Roe instead of asking?

matthewmacleod 4y ago

I mean, you can just refer to the Roe v. Wade judgement to understand the Supreme Court's view on why that is the case.

charrondev 4y ago
But Roe v. Wade (and abortion being protected under a right to privacy) was changed
- matthewmacleod 4y ago
  Right, but the argument for why one would consider it to be protected is clearly spelled out in the original court case – regardless of any subsequent ruling.
99_00 4y ago
And you can refer to Dobbs to understand the Supreme Court's view on why it isn't the case.
- matthewmacleod 4y ago
  You asked why somebody would think that the right to privacy is applicable in this situation. There is ample material describing why they might think that, including a Supreme Court judgement. It's not a difficult position to understand, regardless of whether you believe that view or not. The existence of other material, including a later judgement, supporting the view that this isn't the case does not invalidate other views.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

(In the region known as the United States of America,) Abortion has actually historically been legal until the baby's first movement, which is four or five months. It's only fairly recently where things like banning abortion before pregnancy is even visible was implemented.

throwaway1777 4y ago
Such a blanket statement is false. Different countries and cultures have “historically” had very different rules around abortions.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  Okay, let me edit my post to clarify that I'm speaking in the country where this discussion is happening, because it's about the supreme court decision of a specific country, lol.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

> Everyone agrees that the right to privacy is in the constitution. That is demonstrably not true. Robert Bork may be dead, but many folks still believe what he said, which was that the Constitution does NOT guarantee a general right to privacy. Thomas specifically argued that the court should also look at overturning the right to contraception, private consensual sex, and gay marriage specifically because the same privacy right underlies those rulings.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
One more thing to add the above comment. The ruling in Loving v Virginia, which is what allows interracial marriages like Thomas' to exist in Virginia in the first place, is also based on substantive due process (which is what underlies the privacy right in all these cases). Quite conveniently, Loving v Virginia was not one of the rulings that Thomas argued needed revisiting.
- delecti 4y ago
  Loving v Virginia is based both on due process and equal protection. He's not necessarily a hypocrite to be against Loving but not Roe. But he did call out Obergefell, which is also based on equal protection, so he is very much a hypocrite for calling out that but not Loving.

kennywinker 4y ago

Historically, abortion has been more often legal than illegal. It was made illegal in the period from 1847 to 1880, and stayed that way until 1973 (roe v wade). Of the 246 years since the declaration of independence, abortion has been fully legal for 120 years, illegal in a patchwork of states for 33 years, and illegal fully for 93 years. A good twitter thread with some fun re-framing of the history of abortion: https://twitter.com/jskilesskinner/status/1541164143314714625 https://twitter.com/jskilesskinner/status/154116414331471462...