Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (10260)	1/29/2006 3:08:28 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541695

I'm not sure there is an affirmative right to an abortion. I always thought that Roe, and it's companion cases, established the right of privacy surrounding the body (in tandem with the sterilization cases, if I recall). The right of privacy that surrounds the body permits a woman to get an abortion and not be interfered with by the government- for example, the state cannot criminalize the procedure- but that's about it. It does not appear to mean she has a "right" to one- so the government does not need to make sure there are doctors willing to serve her in her area, or that hospitals are available to provide them, etc. It's pretty clear, from the states where abortions are almost impossible to get now, that there is no right to an abortion- I think the only question left is just how much the right to privacy will be whittled away, as it applies in this area- in other words, how much of a burden can be placed on women trying to end their pregnancies? With eacn new Bush nominee the answer to that question, and the eventual overturning or Roe, becomes more likely to be answered in a way that will be very negative for women who would like to have a choice. I haven't read the recent cases in depth- but they seem to be steadily chipping away at the shreds of privacy that are left to women in this are. Please understand, I think it will be very backward of us in this country to impose a religiously fueled mandate on women to bring to term every egg they happen to have fertilized, but religious laws tend to be reactiionary, and coercive.

To: JohnM who wrote (10260)	1/29/2006 3:29:51 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541695

But this is the case with most rights. The right to vote for women, for African American males, etc. was an assertion that states or municipalities could not rule against. Neither mandated that one had to vote. You're getting your players mixed up. (Either that or creating a strawman. <g>) No, one is not obligated to vote. And no, one is not obligated to shop on Sunday. We who have the right (in the case of voting) or the freedom (in the case of shopping) are not obligated to exercise either, as you say. My distinction is between a right and a freedom. Yes, I know you don't much like nuance so I'll leave it alone. Or, you might have argued that you simply disagreed with the SC interpretation of the Constitution that it was a right. I am delighted that the SC found the right to privacy in the Constitution and that abortions are legal. My only objection to your claiming that they found a right to an abortion rather than a right to choose.