Is there a right to abortion, and if so, where does the right come from?

With the leak of Justice Alito's draft opinion suggesting Roe v. Wage will be overturned, the obvious question before all of us is whether or not there is a right to terminate a pregnancy, and secondly, where does that right come from since it is not explicitly affirmed in the Constitution.

In a nutshell, I'm curious to hear everyone's legal and historical arguments on both sides of this issue.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have studied the long evolution of natural rights doctrines since the 11th Century, so I am familiar with where the claim to a right to terminate a pregnancy comes from.

Before I present my own argument, I think one of the reasons why we are where we are today is because the justices that established the right to abortion based it on the wrong or flimsiest of premises, and if they had based their arguments on a sounder foundation perhaps it wouldn't be in the position of being overturned today. There's legitimate grounds for criticizing a position based on the broad and vague principles of "liberty" and "privacy", and while I think those are legitimate grounds to assert the right, it's obvious that they might not be enough.

Nevertheless - to my argument - I think the right should be upheld, but I think it should be upheld on the core rights to life, self-propriety and self-defense that are not explicitly mentioned but are clearly implicit in the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution.

Now I am going to present to you my core argument, made by the English Leveller (not to be confused with the Diggers/True Levellers) Richard Overton, which is contained in the pamphlet An Arrow Against All Tyrants, published in October 1647. If you're wondering why I selected an argument made exactly 375 years ago, it is to rebut Justice Alito's argument that the core right in dispute here is not part of our Nation's tradition, which happens to include the affirmation of the rights to Life, Liberty and Property. And so I yield the floor to the esteemed Mr. Overton, who articulated the argument far better than I ever could:

To every individual in nature is given an individual property by nature, not to be invaded or usurped by any: for every one as he is himself, so he hath a self propriety, else could he not be himself, and on this no second may presume to deprive any of, without manifest violation and affront to the very principles of nature, and of the Rules of equity and justice between man and man; mine and thine cannot be, except this be; No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no man's; I may be but an Individual, enjoy my self, and my self propriety, and may write myself no more than my self, or presume any further; if I do, I am an encroacher and an invader upon an other man's Right, to which I have no Right. For by natural birth, all men are equally alike and born to like propriety, liberty, and freedom, and as we are delivered of God by the hand of nature into this world, every one with a natural, innate freedom and propriety (as it were writ in the table of every man's heart, never to be obliterated) even so are we to live, every one equally and alike to enjoy his Birth-right and privilege; even all whereof God by nature hath made him free.

http://www.yorku.ca/comninel/courses/3025pdf/Arrow_against_all_tyrants.pdf

"Come What, Come Will!" Richard Overton, Libertarian Leveller
https://mises.org/library/come-what-come-will-richard-overton-libertarian-leveller

It is primarily upon this right to self-proprietorship that I think a woman's rights over her own body should have been asserted and upheld, along with her own rights to life and self-defense, but alas, the right wasn't asserted on those grounds and apparently won't be upheld.

I can go on and will later, but I've done enough to get this discussion and debate started and again I invite everyone on both sides of this issue to present their own opinions and arguments.

 

It seems if men have the right to agency over their own bodies, and women don’t, we are living in some sort of religious society where men get to decide what’s right for women.

even if struck down, there will be no teeth in any illegal law in any state. So, it will be an unprovable crime. The only way to correct that is to have Congress overturn HIPAA for women of child bearing age. I don’t see that happening.

Abortions will still happen, but behind shades of secrecy and will probably be less safe.

 

Y'all keep saying right over their bodies... that just conveniently ignores the rights of the child over it's body.

 

at the moment of conception there is created a unique individual.. as you'll people like to say.. that's science.. how can you, with a clear conscience ignore that?

 

So, then its murder correct?
Murder is illegal, but now each state is going to have its own list of approved murders? Are they allowed to prosecute over state lines? Whats the statute of limitations on prosecution?

 

Absolutely true.

I have a friend who is pregnant with her second child. Two weeks ago she went for her last check-up and stated that she wanted to have a tubal ligation when her baby is born. The doctor outright told her that she has to have her husband's consent. She told them that she is not married to the baby's father and they told her that she has to have her father's consent. She is 29 years old. No joke. This just happened two weeks ago.

I know a married woman with three kids that is risking breast and ovarian cancer because her husband forbids her to get a breast exam or pap smear (as he doesn't want a male touching his wife). I asked her why doesn't she switch to a female doctor to address those important matters and she just shrugged and said that he didn't want that.

I know another woman that was denied breast reduction surgery because the doctor wanted her to come back with her husband for consent. He even had the nerve to make an off-handed comment about her breasts while exclaiming he couldn't imagine her husband wanting anything done to them. She was in her 30s at the time.

Can you imagine the hell men would raise if they were denied a medical procedure solely because of their gender or told they need their wife's consent? This would have been fixed YESTERDAY if it impacted their right to body autonomy and access to safe medical care.

 

The other side of the coin is inscribed with these questions:

1. Does the state [generic] have the authority to control abortions beyond the laws and regulations that apply to medical operation procedures and practices in general?

2. If the answer to the above question is 'Yes', from whence does that authority derive?

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . 'n remember the Big 5.

 

I would be more inclined to which point and extent medical procedures should be used to keep an otherwise unviable fetus alive.. you know, those with gross deformities and no chance of living a conscious life even with continuous medical advances.

 

"Is there a right to abortion?"

 

Someone on a side tangent I invite everyone who is reading to think about perhaps answer this question...

What percent of abortions do you think are actually simply for convenience?

I do not believe in convenient abortion. I'm not saying there should never be abortion under any circumstances but I don't think you should have an abortion just because it's inconvenient to you to have a kid at the time.

If it was such a big inconvenience use a condom or keep your legs closed, or get the morning after pill.

Don't sit there and wait 5 months later and expect the public to pick up the tab

 

You misspelled privacy.

 

Most abortions are for convenience. Not ready for kids, not financially stable, not mentally prepared, etc....

 

I'm not clear on what t you mean by "men have the right to agency over their own bodies", because the government does interfere in a man's right to determine the disposition of his children and force him to become a parent, and if Roe is overturned the government will be interfering in much the same manner.

I also have to ask what would constitute an "illegal law in any state" if the federal government is not there to establish and maintain a standard of legality?

 

Stop spreading your legs for every random loser that pays you the slightest amount of attention. It's that simple....

 

Since there is no way to prove a woman had an abortion, there’s really nothing to be done. HIPAA guarantees ALL Americans a right to medical privacy, not just men.

 

I’m not sure I understand your questions. I’ll attempt to answer.

Men can make decisions for themselves. Roe guaranteed women the same right.

Let’s say MS makes all abortions illegal. How will they know?

 

Care to explain why there is no right?

 

Part of the solution is changes to the adoption process. There is currently way too much red tape involved. It takes some couples years to be approved to adopt a child, meanwhile anyone that wants to can just stroll right across the border without doing the proper paperwork. More people would adopt unwanted children if there wasn't so much bureaucracy involved.

 

But, even if the adoption process was improved, there are still many women who wouldn't want to carry a child to term because they are going to get "fat" or their body is going to "change". Well, you should have thought of that before you spread your legs....

 

yes.. it is murder.

 

The government can and does interfere with a man's right to determine the disposition of his children and force him to become a parent. The same will happen to women if Roe is overturned.

Who is "they" (?), and if any state institutes a total or near-total ban on abortion who/what is to stop them?

I suspect, no one/nothing. There will be no protections for women from the State (at the state and federal level).

 

You think every case of pregnancy is a woman "spreading her legs for a random loser"?

 

How will the state find out a woman had an abortion?

 

No, but like I stated earlier in this thread, most abortions are performed out of convenience. There are, of course, legitimate reasons for abortion due to rape, incest, or possible horrific birth defects. Other than that, no, there is no reason to get an abortion other than for purely selfish reasons. Women say they are in control of their own bodies, they don't want you to objectify them, but at the same time they get on TikTok and Tinder twerking wearing next to nothing, then whine about getting pregnant....

 

I have my own opinions on the matter but what are yours?

It's been clearly established that the State has a legitimate authority to regulate abortions, just as other rights are regulated.