If you ain't a citizen, you ain't a people.
I'm not so sure. I think for example that constitutional rights have been interpreted to apply to non-citizen residents, or even aliens, of course you might disagree with these interpretations but you haven't explicitly stated that you did before.
In any case while I consider the interpretation of the fetus to be "a people" constitutionally to be less activist than Roe vs. Wade was, I am not actively endorsing it, just putting it out there to answer the question of how the fetus could be considered to have constitutional rights. My real point was that no such constitutional rights are required in order to make Roe vs. Wade an example of unjustified judicial activism, or in order to return the decision making in this area to the states.
I'm not misstating your opinion. I'm trying to point out what I see as a contradiction.
No you are misstating my opinion. You say "Now, you are awarding the embryo human rights. I'll go along with that, at least for the sake of argument. But if you want me to buy your claim of it as a constitutional right", when I wasn't specifically claiming (or denying) such a constitutional right. You also say "You can go ahead and claim that human rights are incorporated in the same way that inalienable and natural and all those other rights are, via the penumbra or the ninth amendment or whatever, but I don't see how you can do that as a strict constructionist." When I am making no claim that human rights that are not explicitly recognized by the constitution are part of the constitution, in fact I have explicitly stated the opposite opinion.
You keep framing your argument against an alleged positive right to an abortion. You won't get that claim from me. IMO It's just silly to claim a right to an abortion.
We should try to use "natural right" (or one of the synonymous terms) and "constitutional right", every time we mentioned "right", in this discussion because we are talking about both types of rights.
You said - "And while we're at it <g>, you can't be a strict constructionist and anti-choice, either. The constitution is quite clear about whose rights cannot be abridged, and it sure doesn't include embryos." But that argument simply isn't correct unless you are arguing for a constitutional right to abortion. I am framing my argument about Roe vs. Wade being a bad activist decision, and on the constitutional power of the states to regulate abortion on the lack of any constitutional right to an abortion, either directly, or as the extended result of any constitutional "right to be left alone". If its silly to claim a constitutional right to abortion than it would seem you are conceding that part of the argument, but perhaps you just mean its silly to claim a natural right to abortion.
What we have instead are a negative right to be left alone and positive and negative reproductive rights. Those are natural rights if not constitutional rights. You may claim, also, a natural right for the pre-born to life but you cannot press for that at the expense of the natural rights of women to both privacy and reproduction.
Whatever you want to call it, "right to be left alone", "negative reproductive rights", I recognize a natural right for a woman to control her body. However I consider the right to live to be a greater natural right. The child's body is involved in the situation as well. The only counterargument, that I have heard, to that point that I find at all reasonable, is the argument that if the woman loses her right to control her own body that she is becoming a slave to the fetus, that if someone needed to attach themselves to you in order to live that you would have the right to prevent it, or even detach them, even if it caused them to die. However the fetus did not initiate aggression against its mother. In the vast majority of abortion cases the fetus is not the result of rape so the mother effectively placed the fetus in a position of dependence on her, so it would seem this argument would only have weight in cases where the woman was raped and got pregnant. Another argument would be that when a woman will probably die if she doesn't have an abortion that there are two lives to consider. Most other arguments for legal abortion, other than these two, start with the assumption that the fetus does not have or deserve natural rights. Since I disagree with that assumption they are unpersuasive to me.
no civilized country tells people that they can't or must reproduce or that they can't or must have a medical procedure.
That could mean two things. One is that there is a group of countries that are civilized and none of them happen to place such a restriction. The other is that you are defining any country that does place such a restriction to be uncivilized. The first is a form of "no one else does it, so we shouldn't", which is not a very strong argument. The 2nd might be considered begging the question.
Also the counterargument is that they have already reproduced so you are not telling them that they must reproduce.
Tim |
