3 ms·

I don’t think this is right. It reads backwards to me. Didn’t Roe, controversially, hold that abortion was protected as a function of constitutional protections

by alwa 2y ago

I don’t think this is right. It reads backwards to me. Didn’t Roe, controversially, hold that abortion was protected as a function of constitutional protections related to privacy (in the due process clause of the 14th amendment—specifically as one form of the “liberty” you can’t be “deprived of” without “due process of law”)? Then attempted to explain in medically specific terms when exactly your pregnancy crosses over from being a matter of liberty/personal privacy into a matter that can be regulated or prohibited? Then didn’t Dobbs basically work by undoing the idea that you can locate abortion rights in the due process clause, rather than somehow wrecking the constitutional amendment itself? https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade

FilosofumRex 2y ago
There is a legal subtlety here that's often misunderstood (or misrepresented) by most pro-abortionists: The right to privacy was curved out of the 9th Amendment in the district court decision (not the 4th or the 14th). The Supreme court upheld the district court decision and went further by adding the protection of the 14th amendment as to how and when this privacy right can be abridged by the states (not without due process of law). States must show a compelling interest to intervene in women's decision to abort, and this compelling interest ripens only after the first trimester of pregnancy.
rayiner 2y ago
Roe purports to be about privacy. But it’s really about the second point you list, which is purporting to define when a fetus becomes sufficiently developed to warrant protection from the state. After all, nothing changes between conception and the day before birth from the point of view of privacy. Or heck, even the day after birth—you have a privacy right in your home, not only your person. So the “privacy” right isn’t holding up any weight. All the work is being done by the moral determination that a fetus in the first two trimesters isn’t sufficiently developed to warrant legal protection. Once you assert that killing an 8 week fetus is no different than having a body part removed, the work being done by privacy is trivial. That latter question has nothing to do with privacy or the constitution. It’s a general moral judgment based on underlying biological facts. In that respect, Roe simply is an articulation of Harry Blackmun’s Methodist religious beliefs. The United Methodist Church came out strongly in favor of abortion legality in the 1960s. But there’s nothing in the constitution supporting the determination Roe reached and Roe didn’t even pretend there was.

by alwa 2y ago

FilosofumRex 2y ago

There is a legal subtlety here that's often misunderstood (or misrepresented) by most pro-abortionists: The right to privacy was curved out of the 9th Amendment in the district court decision (not the 4th or the 14th). The Supreme court upheld the district court decision and went further by adding the protection of the 14th amendment as to how and when this privacy right can be abridged by the states (not without due process of law). States must show a compelling interest to intervene in women's decision to abort, and this compelling interest ripens only after the first trimester of pregnancy.

rayiner 2y ago

Roe purports to be about privacy. But it’s really about the second point you list, which is purporting to define when a fetus becomes sufficiently developed to warrant protection from the state. After all, nothing changes between conception and the day before birth from the point of view of privacy. Or heck, even the day after birth—you have a privacy right in your home, not only your person. So the “privacy” right isn’t holding up any weight. All the work is being done by the moral determination that a fetus in the first two trimesters isn’t sufficiently developed to warrant legal protection. Once you assert that killing an 8 week fetus is no different than having a body part removed, the work being done by privacy is trivial. That latter question has nothing to do with privacy or the constitution. It’s a general moral judgment based on underlying biological facts. In that respect, Roe simply is an articulation of Harry Blackmun’s Methodist religious beliefs. The United Methodist Church came out strongly in favor of abortion legality in the 1960s. But there’s nothing in the constitution supporting the determination Roe reached and Roe didn’t even pretend there was.