Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Tuesday, November 10. 2009

Abortion, Money, and Freedom


I am going to comment on some things our friend TigerHawk said here in his piece on government payment for abortions. Says he:



I do not believe that the Constitution can reasonably be read to confer a "right" to an abortion.



The US Constitution was not designed to "confer" rights: it was designed to circumscribe the power and jurisdiction of the Federal State by a group of independent states who, knowing human nature, were deeply suspicious about any expansion of Federal, centralized power after their experience with Britain. According to our founding documents, human freedom is conferred by God to us as individuals, not by man and not by government.


The "Bill of Rights" Amendments were not designed to confer rights either. They were added, on the insistence of the feisty New York delegation, just to make some of the implied meaning crystal clear (and I suppose they were wise to do so, but it makes it appear that unspecified freedoms - or "rights" - do not exist)... except for Amendments lX and X which were intended to cover almost all human actions:



Amendment IX


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



Thus, in my view, abortion should have been ignored by the Supremes. Not a Federal case. It may be rightly a legal issue on the state level, and is certainly an individual moral issue.


The language of "rights" is tricky, easily abused and distorted, and I do not like it. As an American, I do not and should not need specified "rights" to anything - all I need is a clear delineation of the limit of the powers of government, and I will find a way to get on with it in life. 


I can bear arms - and do a million other things that aren't listed. But that doesn't mean that the government should buy me guns. So the question of who pays is another issue entirely. Insurance plans vary widely in the elective things they cover. Most people prefer less expensive plans which do not cover elective procedures, and clearly most people do not want to pay for other peoples' elective abortions.


They don't want to pay for other peoples' IVF either.


Am I right or wrong about all this? Just to be clear, this is not a pro-abortion post...

Posted by Bird Dog in Our Essays, Politics at 09:53 | Comments (8) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

More Wednesday links
Are women pickier about men than men about women? Kelo update: It's a vacant lot How Muslim piracy changed the world SISU, a few weeks ago: "It compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies" Jim Carrey: Self-hating capitalist Pol
Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: Nov 11, 13:26

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I believe that you are correct. The US has morphed into a system that believes if the government allows something or dis-involves itself from an issue than it becomes a "right". And consequently becomes a budget item.
Just because you are allowed to do something or at least there isn't a "law" against it, doesn't mean the government is required to pay for it.
Where did the idea come from, that so many of today's issues need federal government intervention? I want the government out of my business as much as possible and also, hopefully, out of my wallet. Gay marriage doesn't affect me, abortion (unless it's my child) doesn't affect me, someones religion doesn't affect me. Social Security affects me, Medicare/Medicaid affects me, free money to large corporations and banks affects me.
#1 Jonathan Borden on 2009-11-10 10:38 (Reply)
Bird Dog, your post here is an excellent explication of the right of "privacy" -- that is, we are sovereign in ourselves and we retain all rights. The first 8 amendments specify limits on the government, not on us, and the 9th emphasizes that we do retain all rights. If the right of "privacy" had been called the right of "liberty" or "individuality", some who disparage it might support it.
In Griswold, the Supreme Court said that the right of a family to decide its own numbers and structures was superior to a state interest in having children. That decision used the term "privacy" and I wish they had used the term "liberty".
Abortion is far more difficult. Abortion in another family does not break my leg or pick my pocket, to use Thomas Jefferson's excellent ruler for government interference. But it does end a life that has begun. I am not ready to outlaw it or judge others' decisions on it. But I am sorry that anyone ever thinks it's a good option. I feel the same way basically about adultery: I detest it and I want it left to the adults involved, not the state. I am also sorry that anyone would feel that adultery was a good option.
As for who pays for abortions, IVF, and Viagra: well, if the government isn't in the business of defining or distributing benefits, the question dies.
#2 Geoff on 2009-11-10 10:39 (Reply)
You last sentence is right - just as Tiger said too.
#2.1 bd on 2009-11-10 10:59 (Reply)
State intervention in marriage is for the sake of children. I'm not sure 'intervention' is the right word, but it's there in case a marriage breaks up, and that is a good thing. If there were no one to answer to if one party of a marriage walks away, who suffers? Children. Women.
`
#2.2 Meta on 2009-11-10 14:15 (Reply)
Have you read this essay Re: Abortion. Very interesting

"How lying marketers sold Roe v. Wade to America"

http://www.eaec.org/expose/lying_marketers.htm
#3 Mal on 2009-11-10 11:54 (Reply)
So far so good, Dog.

Bill of Rights is a misnomer, me thinks, as those 10 ammendments are further restricting the right of the governments the people were incorporating, for the most part.

Right of man to travel or to procreate are not mentioned but were certain as any others enjoyed by the people.

There is no right to murder people in God's creation or in sane societies.
#4 Leag on 2009-11-10 14:00 (Reply)
We're a homogenious bunch of commenters here. A "right" to obtain or possess or do something is a right not to have government interfere or prohibit such action.

Freedom of the press means that government does not dictate what reporters write or say (or did until the attacks began on Fox News and talk radio - and McCain Feingold).

Freedon of the press does not mean that the government buys you books and (approved) newspapers.
.
#5 Gwynne on 2009-11-10 15:34 (Reply)
One good definition of a right is that it is something which can be enjoyed and exercised without affecting the rights of others. I can enjoy free speech without shutting anyone up or costing them anything or obliging them to do anything. A "right" to health care cannot exist since it can only be enjoyed by infringing on other people's property rights.

All of the rights in the BOR are true rights. Amedntment X takes care of anything else. You're bloody right that the Supremes had no business with Roe v Wade; the correct answer should have been,"None of our business. You states work it out yourselves."
#6 Khornet on 2009-11-11 14:29 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.