Abortion megathread II

[mrmitchell]

It's back, baby! I remember the last thread I started on this had some great discussion but now a few years later there must be some new opinions here on Apolyton Civilization Site LLC.

To start things off, and this is more about Roe v Wade - why did SCOTUS decide to use privacy as the foundational right for abortion? Aren't there much better starting points, using concepts whose presence in the Constitution is less nebulous?

Along the same lines, it is a violation of my privacy for the government to keep me from smoking marijuana (especially if it is deemed medically needed, another concept referenced in Roe). What's up now, SCOTUS?

Discuss. The pot question is kind of a joke but I'd like to see if there's a serious answer for that as well.

[Provost Harrison]

Very US-centric for an abortion thread. There are a lot more countries beyond your borders. I mean, what is SCROTUM? And Roe vs. Wade - is that a tennis match?

[Riesstiu IV]

What do you call an abortion in Prague? A cancelled Czech.

[MOBIUS]

The only problem with abortion is that it is self-defeating - at the same time the ignorant god botherers multiply, the liberal intelligentsia is engaged in holding back their own numbers...

[Provost Harrison]

What do you call an abortion in Prague? A cancelled Czech.

I'll have to remember that one!

[Ben Kenobi]

To start things off, and this is more about Roe v Wade - why did SCOTUS decide to use privacy as the foundational right for abortion? Aren't there much better starting points, using concepts whose presence in the Constitution is less nebulous?

It's like asking why people use a tire iron to pry off lug nuts. If it gets the job done, what more do you need? Privacy gives them the answer they are looking for, which is why they use privacy, and not something else.

[mrmitchell]

Ben could you elaborate? Do you think the right to privacy is simply being misapplied, or that it shouldn't exist at all?

[Felch]

I think privacy is pretty clearly misapplied. Abortion is a medical issue, and it should be up to the states. If South Dakota wants to ban them, fine. If New York wants to have them, fine.

The national government should only be involved when it is clear that the states lack the competency to deal with an issue themselves. Everything else is devolved to the state level.

[Kuciwalker]

mrmitchell, you're free to ignore PH, he's an idiot.

Likewise, you're strongly advised to ignore BK, as he's not only an idiot but a pathological liar.

Very US-centric for an abortion thread. There are a lot more countries beyond your borders. I mean, what is SCROTUM? And Roe vs. Wade - is that a tennis match?

[-Jrabbit]

A new abortion thread?!??

NNNOOOOOOOO!!!!!

[Monk]

The important question is really why you've got the courts handling this instead of Congress. I often think that my own country has given too much power to the legislative branch compared to the two other branches of gov't, and then the exact opposite is true for the United States. Politically speaking, I approve of a number of the progressive SCOTUS decisions, but in principle I find those questions shouldn't have been something for the courts to deal with in the first place.

[Traianvs]

My feeling is that the notion of privacy was the only way in which SCOTUS could've argued for abortion in a nation packed with libertarian nutjobs. And probably it still is up to this day.

[Elok]

Eh, what's to discuss? That humanity/"personhood" begins with conception is quite self-evident to me, and the idea that physical location or development have anything to do with human rights plainly silly. I haven't yet met a pro-choicer who can seem to understand that, and there's not much point in trying with the Supremes sitting on the issue.

[Traianvs]

The important question is really why you've got the courts handling this instead of Congress. I often think that my own country has given too much power to the legislative branch compared to the two other branches of gov't, and then the exact opposite is true for the United States. Politically speaking, I approve of a number of the progressive SCOTUS decisions, but in principle I find those questions shouldn't have been something for the courts to deal with in the first place.

In principle I agree with you, but have you seen the people seating in Congress?

[Felch]

Eh, what's to discuss?

Basically. Talking about abortion is like talking about the weather. Nothing you say will ever change it.

A person's a person, no matter how small. Some people don't care, and will kill people out of a simple desire for a more convenient life. Since we can't throw all those people in jail, and since some of them have sympathetic stories, we keep abortion legal.

I find the hard line pro-life* viewpoint more appealing than the hard line pro-choice. I can understand a person getting worked up over the death of an innocent. I have a tougher time understanding why someone would take the right to a medical procedure so seriously. One is a fundamental human right, and the other is something that ought to be reigned in.

As a matter of public policy, I think the government should define life as the presence of brain activity, and it should be committed to protecting humans that exhibit brain activity. That fits with a common medical definition of death (the ending brain activity) and it gives plenty of time (a few months) for the sympathetic cases to work out their problems before running into a time limit.

*Not including the clinic bombers