The Roe Countdown

[Tero]

" secure in your person against unnecessary search and seizure "

It's just the old pat down to see if you have muskets. You get your muskets back, but at least they know what you might be up to. Authorities need to knwo. But they need to go to court to see if you are a domestic terrorist and read your email.

Wives, slaves and kids do not have this right. Just the white males.

 

[cosmicaug]

The law.

The constitution says that the rights to life, liberty, and property cannot be denied except by due process of law.

The "right to bodily autonomy" isn't in there, at least by name.

What exactly does "liberty" mean?

 

[cosmicaug]

The law.

The constitution says that the rights to life, liberty, and property cannot be denied except by due process of law.

The "right to bodily autonomy" isn't in there, at least by name.

What exactly does "liberty" mean?

In case it was not obvious, it was meant as a serious question.

In the scenario were some power (government?) will arbitrarily impinge on your bodily autonomy in any possible way, what definition of liberty could be applicable to your situation?

 

[Upchurch]

What exactly does "liberty" mean?

Or, for that matter, "person", to whom the Constitution is referring to when it protects the rights to life, liberty, and property. (I'm assuming I don't have to defend that the Constitution doesn't protect these rights to non-persons, but please let me know if I'm wrong about that.)

As I pointed out before, the idea that an embryo is a person at conception is largely of Catholic origin, a teaching that is only about 153 years old*. Before that, the general mainstream consensus (religious or otherwise) was that the fetus was not a person until the "quickening", or when the mother first feels independent movement, around 16 to 20 weeks. This embryotic personhood concept is a down-right fad, relatively speaking.

If someone is going to argue that an embryo is a person under US law and Constitution, it cannot be based on one or two religion's teachings.




* According to the article, the previous Catholic teaching was that the quickening and, thus, personhood didn't happen until 24 weeks.

 

[Meadmaker]

That’s not even true. Embryos can be implanted into any uterus, not just the one whose egg was fertilized. That’s how in vitro fertilization works with surrogates.

It also assumes that each organism in your reasoning is a human being.

People are funny sometimes.


I'm saying that a pregnant woman is uniquely able to maintain the life of the organism growing inside her, and Upchurch feels compelled to disagree, so talks about in vitro fertilization embryos. that have not been implanted.

Well, I stand by my statement anyway.

Meanwhile, I'm deliberately using "organism" in order to avoid any implication that the thing is a "human being", but Upchurch is here saying that my discussion assumes that each organism is a human being. No, it doesn't. I'm deliberately avoiding that assumption, and making that avoidance explicit. It is an organism. There's no doubt about that is there? I have said it has human DNA. That's true, but that is one other way to explicitly NOT imply that it is a human being. By saying "organism with human DNA", I'm calling attention to the fact that I am not saying "a human being." Nothing in my discussion depends on the fetus being a human being.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Overturning Roe throws that question to the legislature, instead of having the court decide.

That is problematic when the minority controls said legislatures. They also grabbed control of the SC through what many of us consider unethical means. McConnell essentially controlled appointments to the SC instead of the POTUS. That meant an even smaller minority, the voters in Kentucky, usurped control of the SC.

The majority in this country don't want Roe overturned. I notice you said legislature instead of the people.

So your premise that it is somehow the legislatures deciding instead of the courts is faulty on multiple levels. Overturning Roe would not only be a tainted SC deciding, it would put the decision into the hands of legislatures that minorities control.

 

[Meadmaker]

In case it was not obvious, it was meant as a serious question.

In the scenario were some power (government?) will arbitrarily impinge on your bodily autonomy in any possible way, what definition of liberty could be applicable to your situation?

People have tried this line of argument before. I don't recall if it occurred in Roe v. Wade. I also don't recall if it occurred in the leaked Dobbs draft, but I think it did. I think Justice Alito addresses it.

I think the original intent was to assume that deprivation of liberty meant imprisonment or something similar. Some people have indeed argued that it extends beyond that, including to mandatory pregnancy continuation.

That isn't a ridiculous interpretation, but my problem with it is that it could apply to any restriction on behavior at all. Is there no restriction on behavior that could pass constitutional muster without the strict scrutiny test being applied? I suppose it might be said that the nature of the imposition, i.e. of a forced continuation of pregnancy really was comparable to imprisonment, because it's a much greater imposition than, for example, speed limits.

For the sake of argument, let's accept that. Requiring pregnancy continuation is a deprivation of liberty.

Then, we get back to a strict scrutiny argument. You can only restrict liberty, including mandatory pregnancy continuation, if:

The government has a compelling interest.
The law in question serves that interest.
No less imposing law would serve that interest.

Courts in the US have universally held that preservation of human life is a sufficiently compelling interest to allow restrictions on activity, including removing the right to life, liberty, and property. The second two prongs of the strict scrutiny requirements are not in dispute (by anyone who should be taken seriously).

So we're back to where we started. Once the baby is on the outside, the government clearly has a compelling interest in preserving its life. Immediately prior to the onset of labor, most people, and most judges, would say the same. So, when does the life of that organism become a compelling interest? At the beinning of labor? Viability? Heartbeat? Fertilization? The law offers no clear guidance, unless the legislature supplies that clear guidance.

 

[Meadmaker]

That is problematic when the minority controls said legislatures. They also grabbed control of the SC through what many of us consider unethical means. McConnell essentially controlled appointments to the SC instead of the POTUS. That meant an even smaller minority, the voters in Kentucky, usurped control of the SC.

The majority in this country don't want Roe overturned. I notice you said legislature instead of the people.

So your premise that it is somehow the legislatures deciding instead of the courts is faulty on multiple levels. Overturning Roe would not only be a tainted SC deciding, it would put the decision into the hands of legislatures that minorities control.

But the same minorities control the Senate, and in recent history, the President, so that minority picks who is on the Supreme Court, which is how we got to where we are.

 

[Meadmaker]

One might have thought that the Constitutional guarantee of being secure in your person against unnecessary search and seizure might include the harvesting of your organs, but one might also have thought that it was a reasonable ground for other issues of privacy, which the court appears ready to abandon. So I suppose it might depend on what is deemed "necessary," and to whom it is necessary. Since "due process of law" mitigates the right to life, liberty and property, and capital punishment is, presumably, included here, it seems at least theoretically possible that some consideration of necessity and due process could justify just about anything. The government is already (potentially) claiming parts of women's lives and bodies, and if some have their way it will include what a non-pregnant woman can do with her uterus, and what a man may wear on his penis, so why stop there? Kidneys? Sure. How about a lung? How about a whole life? It's all subsumed under those clauses, and there's room for debate, right?

Well, yes.

I don't think anyone could convince a court that mandatory kidney transplant would pass constitutional muster, but in overturning it, the court would have to find some reason rooted in the Constitution. I don't think it would be hard.

 

[cosmicaug]

People have tried this line of argument before. I don't recall if it occurred in Roe v. Wade. I also don't recall if it occurred in the leaked Dobbs draft, but I think it did. I think Justice Alito addresses it.

I think the original intent was to assume that deprivation of liberty meant imprisonment or something similar.

OK. So liberty only means not being imprisoned.

So when folk in the USA speak of freedom & liberty; and when we speak about the USA being a free country, etc., what we are really talking about is that most of its citizens are not in jail (of course, by this metric Iran is a paragon of freedom compared to the USA).

It seems like a ridiculous interpretation to me but let's just go along with it for the sake of argument.

Specifically, how are you not free if you are imprisoned?

What is being imprisoned not allowing you to do?

 

[Ziggurat]

The majority in this country don't want Roe overturned.

At the time, the majority of the country didn't want Roe to begin with. Isn't the point of the court to decide constitutionality without regard to popularity?

I notice you said legislature instead of the people.

For the same reason I said courts instead of the people. If you want the question decided by the people, then the courts aren't a better solution.

I suspect that you are actually indifferent to how the question is decided, and only care that it is decided in your favor.

So your premise that it is somehow the legislatures deciding instead of the courts is faulty on multiple levels.

That isn't a premise. That is a conclusion, and an obvious one.

Overturning Roe would not only be a tainted SC deciding,

Not relevant to what I said.

it would put the decision into the hands of legislatures that minorities control.

That's... still in the hands of the legislature. Which is what I said. You haven't shown any flaws in my conclusion, you have actually re-affirmed it.

 

[Meadmaker]

OK. So liberty only means not being imprisoned.

So when folk in the USA speak of freedom & liberty; and when we speak about the USA being a free country, etc., what we are really talking about is that most of its citizens are not in jail (of course, by this metric Iran is a paragon of freedom compared to the USA).

It seems like a ridiculous interpretation to me but let's just go along with it for the sake of argument.

Specifically, how are you not free if you are imprisoned?

What is being imprisoned not allowing you to do?

Like I said. People are funny. Compulsive disagreement, even if it has to be taken completely out of context.

Read the rest of the post from which you quoted.

 

[Upchurch]

People are funny sometimes.


I'm saying that a pregnant woman is uniquely able to maintain the life of the organism growing inside her, and Upchurch feels compelled to disagree, so talks about in vitro fertilization embryos.

Well, I stand by my statement anyway.

It is your prerogative to stand by a false statement, but you should understand that any argument you make based on that statement is trivially dismissed as based on a false premise.

People are indeed funny.

Meanwhile, I'm deliberately using "organism" in order to avoid any implication that the thing is a "human being", but Upchurch is here saying that my discussion assumes that each organism is a human being. No, it doesn't. I'm deliberately avoiding that assumption, and making that avoidance explicit. It is an organism. There's no doubt about that is there? I have said it has human DNA. That's true, but that is one other way to explicitly NOT imply that it is a human being. By saying "organism with human DNA", I'm calling attention to the fact that I am not saying "a human being." Nothing in my discussion depends on the fetus being a human being.

But, "organisms" are not equal nor inherently protected by law or Constitution. We don't even recognize most organisms' right to life. With a few exceptions, we reserve that for human people.

 

[Upchurch]

At the time, the majority of the country didn't want Roe to begin with.

Source? I'm not finding any numbers on this, one way or the other.

I'm finding groups who really liked it and groups who really didn't like it, but not an overall population percentage.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Source?

His ass.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

His ass.

I'm glad I saw this in the ten minutes before it gets removed.

 

[Ziggurat]

Source? I'm not finding any numbers on this, one way or the other.

Can't remember where I heard it. It's possible I'm wrong.

But regardless, I think the point would still remain: the purpose of the court isn't to rule on the basis of popularity. If you thought Roe v Wade was correctly decided the first time, would you be in favor of overturning it if the majority of people wanted it overturned? Likewise, the argument against overturning it shouldn't depend on its current popularity (which could change), but on the assertion that it was correctly decided the first time.

Do you actually disagree with this?

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm saying that a pregnant woman is uniquely able to maintain the life of the organism growing inside her, ...

It is your prerogative to stand by a false statement,..

Just quoting for emphasis.

 

[Upchurch]

Can't remember where I heard it. It's possible I'm wrong.

It is possible, yes.

But regardless, I think the point would still remain: the purpose of the court isn't to rule on the basis of popularity. If you thought Roe v Wade was correctly decided the first time, would you be in favor of overturning it if the majority of people wanted it overturned? Likewise, the argument against overturning it shouldn't depend on its current popularity (which could change), but on the assertion that it was correctly decided the first time.

Do you actually disagree with this?

I do agree. However, I there is a pretty good argument that overturning Roe was (or will be) made due to the popular opinion of minority who put the majority of current justices on the court.

May I assume that you would agree this is a bad thing, if true?

 

[Upchurch]

Just quoting for emphasis.

Emphasis of what?