Skip to main content

View Diary: Extremist Conservative Legal Reasoning on Abortion Rights (269 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  i don't see how that is false analogy (none)
    Dragging in other individuals?  But isn't that what Lawrence was all about (and it relied explicitly on Roe and Casey)?  And if I understand human reproduction, and I think I do, it takes 2 to tango.  So, if someone wants to conceive from their brother, they legally cannot.  Same with minors.  Yes, minors are incapable of consent but what is a "minor"?  Some states say under 14, some say under 15, some under 17, etc.  So, in one state it may be legal to have sex with 14 year old, but in another not so.  Is that not a moral judgment on the part of the state?

    Another analogy is that you cannot do as you wish with your body.  You cannot pump it full of illegal drugs.  You cannot sell your organs.  You cannot sell your body for sex, etc.

    Abortion laws may have a religious history and background, but as mentioned before so do numerous other laws, e.g., prohibition on incest and bigamy.  Arguments against abortion are not necessarily religious.  Here is a policy argument.  "The country is underpopulated and we need all the newborns we can get."  (You may disagree (I do) with the premise that it is underpopulated, or the means to get those newborns (requiring women to carry the pregnancy to term)) but it is a policy argument and not a religious one nonetheless.  

    Finally, as I mentioned below, prohibiting conduct is not (except in extreme circumstances) an infringement of your religious beliefs.  (Only when you are prohibited/required to do explicitly religous thing like praying does 1st Am come into play).  General laws, even if they contradict your (ir)religion while being consonant with my religion are not unconstitutional.

    •  Do I have to spell it out? (none)
      The judgement on the part of the state is when a person can judge for themselves.  This is not a "moral" decision, if you know what the word means.  This is a psychological and social decision, both of which are subject to more rigorous evaluation than that which is vulgarly termed "moral," not to mention the religious.  

      And if I understand human reproduction, and I think I do, it takes 2 to tango.

      Well, then you clearly DON'T understand human reproduction.  A woman can conceive without a man's direct consent, and even without him being alive.  Conception and abortion, furthermore aren't the same thing.  You are assuming that conception initiates an uninterruptable process, which is a nice way of saying that you are assuming your conclusion from the get go.  What does it matter that a woman has conceived?  Where is the state given the power to compel her decision to continue?  

      I am not entitled to drugs any more than I am entitled to consume any other thing that I am also not allowed to possess.  You'll notice that fetuses aren't illegal to possess, bombs  and opiates are.  You might consider the differences between the two classes of object and why the state might have a reason to control them.  

      Prohibitions on incest are indeed religious.  They are also not necessary.  The State MAY have an interest in prohibiting incestuous reproduction for health reasons.  Bigamy, however, is a breach of contract.  Is it possible you meant consensual polygamy?  There is no reason to ban polygamy that I can think of.  I don't need to assert a libertarian absolutism to say that, I just can't see what the problem is.  Most of human society for most of human history would agree with me, but so what?  

      I'll let the absurdity of your non-religious policy argument against abortion stand as an example of there not being any (non-hypothetical) anti-abortion arguement.  

      Thank you.  

      Finally, prohibiting abortion is not just prohibiting conduct, it is also requiring conduct, and that the individual undertake the dangers and inconveniences of carrying to term of childbirth.  What crime has a pregnant woman committed that she must be compelled to do this against her will?  Or are women some subordinate category and we can do this to them if we want to?  Where is the state given THAT power?  Not some other power having to do with conception or marriage contracts or getting high or anything else you can throw up, but where does government get the power to compel that?  
      .

      •  Unclear, para one (none)
        refers to sex with minors.  
        .
      •  Your arguments are not convincing (none)
        First, so what that a woman can conceive w/o man's direct consent?  We were talking about reproductive liberty.  If there is a right to choose what to do post-conception, there must be an equal right to choose when to conceive and from whom.  And that was my point.  And we let state control that with no apparent objection.  You artificaially separate pregnacy from conception, declare them to be different and on the basis of this declaration apply a different analysis.  I don't think that such an approach is logical.

        You postulate that there may be health reasons for prohibiting incestuous conception.  that is true, but those reasons are equally well applied to marriages between balcks (way higher incidence of sickle cell anemia), Ashkenazi Jews (Tay Sach's disease), and other insular groups.  So, it is the moral opprobium that governs incestuous conduct.

        You guessed corrrectly that I meant consenusal polygamy.  We prohibit that.  I doubt that any court any time soon will find a constitutional right to such an arrangements.  It may not be a big deal to you or to me, but clearly the society thinks it is a big deal and is unwilling  to tolerate it on moral/religious grounds.

        I agree with you that requiring child-birth is stupid and bad policy.  That is not however a constitutional argument.  being drafted into the military is also requiring conduct, and putting a person (usually male) in danger despite him not having committed any crime.  But the prohibition on abortion can be arrived at not by punishing the woman, but by prohibiting docs from doing it.  Sure, the result is the same, but it matters how you get there.  State can (and always could) regulate the practice of medicine.  States constantly yank licenses from people hwo engage in what state deems "inappropriate" medical practices including "alternative medicine."  If a state decides that abx is not an "appropriate medical practice" it can prohibit it.

        Finally, in order to not write another response, I will answer your religious argument here.  It has always been understood that although religion may compel certain conduct, the state can prohibit such conduct (and vice versa).  For example, SCOTUS has held Sunday closing laws constitutional despite the fact that tehy are clearly religiously informed.  They have hald army regulations on no extra head gear constitutional despite the fact that religious jews need to wear a yarmulke.  The general rule of thumb is that if the law is a general law and applies neutrally to all, whether religious or not, it is constitutional even if it conflicts with some religious tenets and/or seems to spring from or endorse other tenets.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site