Seth, the SC does not legislate anything or create rights. No matter how many times you keep trying to imply that it does. It is the role of the SC to interpret whether a state or federal law violates the Constitution(effectively or otherwise). If the laws are unconstitutional, then they can't be enforced.
Agreed. The SC does not legislate, nor may they
effectively legislate under the guise of a ruling. Had there been a strong, unambiguous constitutional basis in the Roe case, the SC could have struck down the Texas law as being unconstitutional and left it at that. But instead, the 1973 SC asserted that the 14th Amendment provided for a heretofore unknown "right of privacy" (effectively legislating such a right), and it declared (effectively legislating) that abortions could not be restricted in the first trimester, could be somewhat regulated in the second trimester, and that abortions may be
prohibited in the third trimester. With regard to the ruling on the third trimester, it seems to be clear that even that 1973 Court recognized the right to life of an unborn child at some point prior to birth, a fact that is often forgotten when people talk about the Roe case.
This is only about a woman's choice and a woman's privacy.
The abortion debate is not
only about a woman's choice and a woman's privacy. It is also about the rights of an unborn. As I pointed out above, even the 1973 SC Roe decision recognized that. And, as I mentioned before, if everyone agreed on when that right to life begins, there would be no debate over abortion. The
real question is not a woman's choice or her privacy. The real question, the crux of the whole debate, is when does an unborn have a right to life, liberty, and equal protection? At conception? When it has a heartbeat? At the start of the 3rd trimester? When it is viable outside the womb? Or not until it is actually born? Intelligent people who know the science of fetal development can and do disagree on this question. At what point do we value the fetal entity as an equal to people who are already born?
This is what the whole debate is about.
States can certainly regulated the limitations regarding abortions. As it can with all other rights and freedoms. But these regulations can't prevent, impede, or make it impossible for a woman to have an abortion.
Yes, they can under the Roe decision, after a point (the start of the third trimester).
Do YOU really think that a woman's right to terminate her own pregnancy, is NOT a privacy or liberty issue? I seriously doubt if anything could be more private than pregnancy and abortion decisions.
It really doesn't matter what I think. Let me explain why. Let's say you find out your wife is being unfaithful to you. So you decide how and when to murder her, and you do it. You end up getting prosecuted and going to trial. At trial, you argue that murdering your wife was a choice that you were entitled to make because it was
your marriage and she was unfaithful, and that you have a right to privacy in your personal marital affairs. Now obviously, that defense won't work. Why? The answer is that your wife was a human being - a person - who was entitled to life. We can all agree on that. So your right to privacy and liberty to murder your wife is trumped by the fact that your wife was a person who was entitled to life.
We also all agree that at some point from conception to post-birth, a child is entitled to life, regardless of whether the mother agrees. The crux of the debate is
when that entitlement to life begins.
So to answer your question directly, no. It is
not strictly an issue of the privacy and liberty of the mother. The
biggest issue - the entire crux of the debate - is
when the unborn have a right to life, liberty, and equal protection under the law.
Without an example, I don't know what a "strained interpretation" of the 14th Amendment even means. There are 3 basic clauses that are mentioned in this amendment(citizenship, equal protection, and the privileges and immunities clauses). Which of these clauses is the subject of a strained interpretation and why? Please look at the first video about the 14th Amendment. It doesn't matter if there is no "privacy clause", or a "right to privacy" mentioned. It is clearly implicit in this reconstruction amendment. Also, what do you think the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments are all protecting(without saying it)?
I think it does matter. When we start having our courts grant "implicit" rights, we are allowing them to effectively "legislate" rights. Perhaps the starkest example of why this must not be allowed was the argument that the slave owners used in the lead-up to the Civil War. They asserted that the efforts of the North to end slavery were an assault upon their property rights, as slaves were thought to be "property". The Dred Scott decision of 1857 bolstered that "implicit" right to own other human beings by deciding that people of African descent were not citizens of the U.S. and that they were not entitled to the protections and rights enumerated in the Constitution. Although nothing in the Constitution ever said that only people of the white race may be citizens of the U.S., the Supreme Court, in effect, legislated from the bench,
creating white-only citizenship, and denying basic constitutional protections to people based upon race. This ruling didn't create rights, but instead, effectively legislated a denial of rights to a certain class of people. Unquestionably, this was a good example of judicial overreach, and it serves as an example of the perils of allowing 9 unelected people to effectively legislate our laws. It also serves as an example of why I prefer "originalist" judges over "activist" or "living document" judges.
When is the unborn a person? WHEN IT IS NO LONGER AN UNBORN!! When is an unborn entitled to the right of "life" or "liberty"? Also, when the unborn is born. Or, is at least a viable unborn.
Shell, which is it? No longer unborn, or a viable unborn?
Don't answer that. Whatever your answer would be doesn't matter. Here's the point:
That is the crux of the whole debate. When do the unborn have a right to life, liberty, and equal protection? That is the entire debate. And the answers to that are
opinions. And those opinions run the entire gamut.
Since you have already labeled any answers as only an opinion, you are no longer looking for the truth. This is the very definition of confirmation bias.
There is no authoritative, undeniable, supreme truth that can answer that question. And since God Himself is not going to suddenly appear in person and make the call, we are left with our opinions, and we may vote, and we may legislate. That's as good as it gets. Is it perfect? No. Because "perfect" would mean that we all agree, and that is not going to happen - not ever.
So what is your personal feelings about women having a right to choose to terminate their own pregnancy? Do you think that the State should decide this for them? Or, are you a, "too bad, so sad", kind of person?
My opinions on that fall in the middle. I am opposed to banning all abortions, and I am opposed to aborting babies after a point.
