4 ms·

> [...] why was it never codified in law? The findings of the SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade was: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Consti

> [...] why was it never codified in law? The findings of the SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade was: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to abort her fetus. [1] In other words, *the SCOTUS finding said* abortion was codified in law -- the U.S. Constitution. Edit: clarified the summary to attribute the finding to the SCOTUS and not to my opinion [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

hef19898 4y ago
Except it was not as the SCOTUS just ruled.
- Toxygene 4y ago
  The question was not about the most recent finding of the SCOTUS. The question was, why wasn't abortion codified into law since Roe v. Wade.
  - Mordisquitos 4y ago
    If the right to an abortion was already codified in law by the U.S. Constitution, why was a ruling on Roe v. Wade even necessary?
    - Toxygene 4y ago
      I was incorrect in that assertion. Abortion was not codified until Roe v. Wade.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      It's not explicitly codified. But that doesn't mean it's not a right. Which is why we have opinions ruling the day. And if we read Thomas' opinion on the matter, contraception, gay marrage, etc. are all on the chopping block to come. And that doesn't even cover the "Voting Rights Act of 1965" kerfluffel that's also about to hit.
      - hef19898 4y ago
        From a distance, it seems like some States will get the go from SCOTS to revert everything back to Jim Crow / pre-Civil Rights movement. Pretty scary actually, even for non-Americans.
Teknoman117 4y ago
> that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to abort her fetus. Unfortunately the 14th amendment does not explicitly say that. Therefore we've been operating off of the court's previous interpretation of the 14th amendment, which has now changed. So unless Congress can pass legislation legalizing it federally without any ambiguity, it's going to be left up to the states.
- cogman10 4y ago
  The 9th amendment says you don't have to explicitly state a right.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    You're correct. But that means it's up to the courts to decide what is a right. One SCOTUS ruled that privacy - bodily autonomy - was a right. The current SCOTUS ruled that it is not. Their logic is dodgy, but that doesn't matter, sadly. The ball is in Congress' court now.
- orwin 4y ago
  I don't really understand the ramifications. If you have a vegetative child, are you obligated to keep them on life support for the rest of his life? My grandmother died last month. We chose to keep her under morphine despite the fact that she couldn't take her heart medecine anymore, and to not install another IV (she refused to be taken out of her home and to be sent to a hospital the day prior). Would we have been able to do that? I know worse! a very young and talented violonist, friend of my parents when i was a kid, suffered a weird disease that would excite her nerves, hurting her even when staying still. The pain was so high her brain was shut down most of the days until she took her own life. If this disease triggers in an infant not able to speak yet (and who won't be able to learn, ever), what happen? I'm pretty sure this is debilitating, so the infant would need life support for at least ten years, and then be unable to learn anything, only suffering or being dosed with morphine. Would letting this infant off life support be prosecuted? This is really interesting philosophically. I am a negative utilitarist of sort (Karl Popper is the base of half my opinions tbh),so the answer to all the questions are evident. For classical utilitarists or deontologists though, those should be really interesting. Where do you draw the line?

hef19898 4y ago

Except it was not as the SCOTUS just ruled.

Toxygene 4y ago
The question was not about the most recent finding of the SCOTUS. The question was, why wasn't abortion codified into law since Roe v. Wade.
- Mordisquitos 4y ago
  If the right to an abortion was already codified in law by the U.S. Constitution, why was a ruling on Roe v. Wade even necessary?
  - Toxygene 4y ago
    I was incorrect in that assertion. Abortion was not codified until Roe v. Wade.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    It's not explicitly codified. But that doesn't mean it's not a right. Which is why we have opinions ruling the day. And if we read Thomas' opinion on the matter, contraception, gay marrage, etc. are all on the chopping block to come. And that doesn't even cover the "Voting Rights Act of 1965" kerfluffel that's also about to hit.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      From a distance, it seems like some States will get the go from SCOTS to revert everything back to Jim Crow / pre-Civil Rights movement. Pretty scary actually, even for non-Americans.

Teknoman117 4y ago

> that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to abort her fetus. Unfortunately the 14th amendment does not explicitly say that. Therefore we've been operating off of the court's previous interpretation of the 14th amendment, which has now changed. So unless Congress can pass legislation legalizing it federally without any ambiguity, it's going to be left up to the states.

cogman10 4y ago
The 9th amendment says you don't have to explicitly state a right.
- falcolas 4y ago
  You're correct. But that means it's up to the courts to decide what is a right. One SCOTUS ruled that privacy - bodily autonomy - was a right. The current SCOTUS ruled that it is not. Their logic is dodgy, but that doesn't matter, sadly. The ball is in Congress' court now.
orwin 4y ago
I don't really understand the ramifications. If you have a vegetative child, are you obligated to keep them on life support for the rest of his life? My grandmother died last month. We chose to keep her under morphine despite the fact that she couldn't take her heart medecine anymore, and to not install another IV (she refused to be taken out of her home and to be sent to a hospital the day prior). Would we have been able to do that? I know worse! a very young and talented violonist, friend of my parents when i was a kid, suffered a weird disease that would excite her nerves, hurting her even when staying still. The pain was so high her brain was shut down most of the days until she took her own life. If this disease triggers in an infant not able to speak yet (and who won't be able to learn, ever), what happen? I'm pretty sure this is debilitating, so the infant would need life support for at least ten years, and then be unable to learn anything, only suffering or being dosed with morphine. Would letting this infant off life support be prosecuted? This is really interesting philosophically. I am a negative utilitarist of sort (Karl Popper is the base of half my opinions tbh),so the answer to all the questions are evident. For classical utilitarists or deontologists though, those should be really interesting. Where do you draw the line?