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
Monday, September 26. 2022
Amendments lX and X, and abortion
The reason I reference the US Constitution's Amendments lX and X is because, in some ways, I agree with Justice Blackmun that there is a "penumbra of privacy." Freedom of the individual is not limited to the Constitution, quite the opposite in fact. The purpose of the Constitution was to give governments only limited and necessary power. On the other hand, is abortion a kind of murder? I do not know, but it's hard for me to view it as medical care. It is medical, yes. Can it be an individual conscience issue?
Predictably, Prof. Tribe in the NYRB wrote Deconstructing Dobbs. He feels it's a religion issue.
Your views are welcome, whatever they may be except for appeals to convenience. Children are never convenient. Most of life is inconvenient.
Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 15:31 | Comments (15) | Trackbacks (0)
Trackback specific URI for this entry
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
If the court was serious about a "penumbra of privacy" then the reasoning of Roe and Casey would apply to a number of other medical procedures and treatments.
The failure of the court to extend this "penumbra of privacy" beyond the right of a woman to kill her unborn child demonstrates the unseriousness of the argument.
Just because it is religious dogma does not mean that it isn't science. Let's "follow the science." At conception, there is life that could be sustained by transplanting the fertilized egg to another woman or an artificial womb. The fertilized egg -- now a fetus -- is not part of the woman's body. Consider this argument as more logical, cogent and scientific than Tribe's: https://youtu.be/VvaO7-7kIls
At first, when I was young, I wasn't completely opposed to abortion but I still saw it as killing an unborn human. As abortion was pushed and evolved to birthing a child and leaving it on the operating table to die I became very opposed to it. But by then I had grandkids and great grandkids and some 80 years of life experience. I cannot understand late term abortion or those who would approve of it. I think that abortion in the first 15 weeks might be a reasonable compromise and I think that anyone considering abortion should be provided with options and 24 hours to decide.
I simply cannot identify with those who rabidly support late term abortion up to and including birth. That is murder in my opinion. Say what you will about my opinion that up to 15 weeks being reasonable while abortion at birth is murder but that's the way I see it.
As for privacy. Did they demand proof of vaccination??? Many who did are the same people who believe killing a baby is between the "mother" and her doctor and no one else. Reconcile that if you can.
It is an individual, unique from his mother and father, with certain unalienable rights. It's government's role to protect his rights from those who would violate them.
Science has progressed to the point where a desperate woman could be trying to save her premature child while a child/fetus of the same age is being destroyed at the behest of another desperate woman.
I think we should stop arguing about when life begins because we will never agree. But at 12 weeks we can definitely see that the “fetus” is a tiny human being and abortion certainly extinguishes a life. A 12 or 15 week limit gives a woman length of time to decide if she wants the child. Beyond that there should be exceptions for gross fetal abnormality or to save the LIFE of the mother. Abortions due to rape or incest are a tiny proportion of abortions currently performed but I would grant exception if the case is reported and proven.
Conservatives can win on this issue. It isn’t everything, but it is where the American people apparently now stand and as science progresses, future arguments can be made for further restrictions. I am a conservative and in a world where reliable birth control is widely available and there is little excuse therefore for an unwanted child abortion should deed be rare.
Republicans should run on this and take what we can get now. If Democrats win on this issue, the opportunity for abortion through the ninth month will be available in every state.
My 2 cents…
Hard to understand anyone who agrees with the crystal ball gazing of Blackmun. But I found the right to abortion between the guarantee to gay marriage and the right to groo,
According to science(TM), a new human life (a baby) begins at conception.
Discussing when it's OK to kill a child--eight weeks after conception, 15 weeks after conception, or 40 weeks after conception--is a fool's errand. Whether aborted three or 36 weeks after conception, the baby is dead.
The only difference is the size of bag that will hold the baby's pieces.
The abortion debate determines whether our society permits killing babies or doesn't. There are two sides...no middle ground.
The "penumbra of the Constitution" is bu ll sh it. It's leftist wordplay for relativism and changing the meaning of the law to suit your agenda. Might as well just say someone is sorta pregnant.
As a young woman in back bay boston , I had a chance to interview an abortionist. My central questions were who were his clients and why did they do it. His reply was they were the wealthy young women attending harvard, wellesley,etc. Colleges in the area. They came bacj, frequently, because they could not be bothered taking any precautions. Many decades later i interviewed two mature women. One a grandmother, the other never married. They both states they aborted, or to use their terminology, a human baby, because it was inconvenient. The grandmother wished she had killed at least one more of her children and she was not kidfing. Make no mistake about it....women are not the gentler sex. As for late term? Almost full term organs are much more profitable.
At some point, we just all need to compromise but that is not in the Spirit of the Times.
Those that advocate absolute prohibition leave no room for charity to many women who could benefit from it and deserve some understanding. Have a heart!
Those who want essentially legal infanticide are morally repugnant to me.
Use of surgical abortion as a birth control method when those that prevent conception are now freely available is decadent and expensive.
The first 15 week rules (or some such) strike me as where most people and legislatures will land and I would satisfied.
I have a heart, for that innocent baby, and for the “mother” who frequently greatly regrets her actions.
I understand your sentiments but where would you compromise with those on the other side, thinking that it all about a woman's choice?
Both sides have arguments that have validity. If we all can't "give a little, take a little" then we're doomed to perpetual acrimony.
Shouldn't we "lower the temperature?"
I have the greatest respect for the IX and X amendments to the constitution . So did Dredd Scott have " No Rights Which the White Man was Bound to Respect " ?: If he jumped state lines he did . A black man is either a person or not .
And if the fetus , blob of flesh , baby etc .. has nothing resembling human right from conception to crowning , then Amendments IX and X might be appropriate , otherwise , this is Dred Scott all over again .
This , then , is the public conversation that needs to be had .
BTW : if Tribe believes that this is a religious issue , what is his justification for the abortion of a healthy baby 1 week before it's scheduled birth ???