NationStates Jolt Archive

Is abortion a constitutional Right?

i don't know, can you convince me one way or another? :confused:

While I support abortion, I would say no.
Quite obviously because it is not in the constitution....

While I support abortion, I would say no.
Quite obviously because it is not in the constitution....



if you are going to be technical, neither is the phrase "free speech"

9th amendment. You know why it was ruled Constitutional?

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. "

Abortion is a right.


Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional. It defines the Constitution. Supreme Court said that women have the right to abortions; ergo, it is a Constitutional right.

Do we *really* need an amendment on abortion?!?!

Do we *really* need an amendment on abortion?!?!


now that is not likely to happen any time soon, but i think it WILL happen

I think the better question is does an unborn fetus have any constitutional rights? We know the woman has rights protected under the law. There has never been any laws that have given any rights to a fetus. So, I think that is the better question. Should a fetus have rights? and if yes, to what end?

Well, as abortion is based on the right to privacy and the constitution does not grant a right to privacy, then the answer is no.
The constitution does, however, protect the right to life. This being said, the life of both the fetus and the woman must be given equal consideration. Hence, though in most cases abortion is unconstitutional, there are cases where it is constitutional. Particularly if the due process rights of the fetus are observed.
Due process here being fulfilled by 3 doctors (who don't work for the abortion clinic) saying that the woman will die or be so severly disabled physically or mentally as to render life unbearable, or that the fetus will die or be born in a vegetative state.
Now the issue of whether the woman is willing to give her life so her fetus can live is the ultimate test of a woman's love for her child. Bearing in mind, that she doesn't have to die just so her child can live. Most women today would chose that the child die instead of them. In such cases, whatever decision the woman makes, it cannot be said of her that she chose against life. Nay, rather she made a prolife decision. It may be her own or that of her child, but it still a prolife decision.
Course, if you bring God into it, God is the God of life but he is also the God of freedom of choice. If the woman sins by choosing to have an abortion, it is between 3 people, her, her husband, and God. And in the end, we know that God shall pass judgment on all. Even the antiabortionists who kill in the name of life will face the Great White Throne of God Almighty.
Verily I say to that once there was a man and a woman standing before the judgment of God. Both of them had committed murder.
The woman said unto God, "I have sinned. I am not worthy to be here. For I have spelt the blood of my own offspring."
The man on the other hand said unto God, "Ok God, where's my big mansion in the sky."
God sayest unto the man, "According to this book, you have committed murder."
The man replied "Well yeah, I did that in your name. Those doctors were killing children so I killed them and I those women I killed had abortions. I did it in the name of righteousness, in the name Jesus."
Then God picked up the great book of sins, looked through once, looked through it twice, looked through it thrice.
Speaking to the woman, "ah yes here it is. You had an abortion in this year this month and this day. And it pierced your heart. Also says you blasphemed my name. More interesting stuff here...Oh wait, what's this? What's my son doing in here?...That's funny. I could have sworn you were in here a minute ago. Looks through the whole book 20 times. Maybe it was the other book I saw you in."
So God the Almighty picks up the book titled "Lamb's Book of Life", he scans through it, oh here it is. And he read the woman's full name and even the description to make sure it was her.
The woman answered that it was.
Then God sayest unto her "Well done good and servant enter thou into Paradise."
The man seeing this became wroth with anger. He sayest unto God "You can't do that, she's a sinner. She's a murderer and blasphemer and a slut."
God answered him saying "Yes I can, cause I'm God and I wrote both those books."
Then God went to the first book, scanned it and said "Ah, here you are. Killed 12 doctors and 23 women. Taking my name in vain. Pride, arrogance. Hmm, lust."
The man became nervous, "But my Lord surely knowest that I did this in his name. I did it to protect the children."
And God answered and said unto him, "This woman killed cause she thought she had to. Her choice between herself and her child were very difficult for her to bear. You on the other hand killed people just because you didn't agree with them ideologically. You have taken my name in vain and committed blasphemy by invoking my name while committing this evil. By committing these crimes, you were engaged in pride, anger, malice, and murder. You have committed hypocrisy here, (points to a paragraph in the book) when you forced your own girlfriend to get an abortion when you were a young man, cause you didn't want your promiscous sex life ruined. Hence you shall go where all murderers, hypocrites, sexually immoral, and hatefilled people are assigned to go."
And behold, the angel of death came forth and took hold of the man, and dragged him to the bottomless pit that is the lake of fire whose effects are eternal.

As Hexubiss showed, abortion is a penumbric right under the 14th and/or 9th Amendments.

I think the better question is does an unborn fetus have any constitutional rights? We know the woman has rights protected under the law. There has never been any laws that have given any rights to a fetus. So, I think that is the better question. Should a fetus have rights? and if yes, to what end?
You are the only one I have seen answer that question. The answer is no. Because the Constitution clearly states that the rights in it, are for people who have been "born" in the US. Since a fetus has not been born, then the answer is no.
For a fetus to have constitutional rights, the constitution would have to be amended, which I did propose a while back, but I find the climate is too bitter and too partisan. But there will be an amendment on the subject that will protect the fetus, but it won't be what the anti abortion groups want cause it will give significant protections to the mother as well as the fetus.
Hence, the people most likely to oppose it, and who did oppose it in my experience in making the proposal, were the so called Pro-lifers while the Pro-Choice groups, to my surprise, supported it.
I discussed it with Alan Keyes and he opposed it. See, there are people in the debate that want all or nothing. My proposed amendment did not give them that. It was a middle ground based on logic and respect for the natural rights of both entities involved.
Ironically, while many dems said they supported the amendment, many pro life republicans opposed the amendment. I did think it would be the other way around but it wasn't.
Why do you think that was.

Is abortion a constitutional Right?

i don't know, can you convince me one way or another? :confused:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html :sniper:

I don't see it- do you?

In Visitors2's story, God read his book once, he read it thrice...but he didn't read it the second time apparantly..

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html :sniper:

I don't see it- do you?

People have such little knowledge of how the government and the Constitution work.

People have such little knowledge of how the government and the Constitution work.
Yea...it's called strict vs loose constructionism.

As Hexubiss showed, abortion is a penumbric right under the 14th and/or 9th Amendments.
The 14th amendment states that only those who are born on US soil have rights that are protected by the Constitution. Hence, fetuses are not protected.
Abortion is legal not because it has anything to do with privacy, but rather because fetuses have no rights under the US Constitution.

speaking of which, Steph. just made me destroy the first part of the argument in my first post in this thread. But if we are talking amendment, we ought to speak the language of logic and not of blind religious opinion.

Yea...it's called strict vs loose constructionism.
I fall under the strict group. Hence the reason why I say fetuses have no constitutional rights.

The constitution is unclear, you can argue that the right may live within the text of the 14th and 9th, but it isn't enumerated. It also isn't banned. I would argue that there is no constitutional argument for banning it for reasons of denying the child of rights b/c 14 says "all persons naturally born" not conceived.

if you are going to be technical, neither is the phrase "free speech"

Assuming you still want to be technical about it "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech"; the difference between "free speech" and "freedom of speech" is very small, to the point of irrelevance. Also in the constitution, there is no mention of separation of church and state. Try telling that one to liberals (and some conservatives, too, but not a whole lot.)

Yea...it's called strict vs loose constructionism.

Strict constructionism would mean that separate but equal was just fine, that it is perfectly fine for workplaces and schools and even the government to discriminate based on gender/age/race - as long as the people can vote.

Do we really want strict constructionism?

While I support abortion, I would say no.
Quite obviously because it is not in the constitution....

In Roe v. Wade, it was ruled that abortion was protected under the right to privacy. No such right to privacy is EXPLICITLY enumerated in the Constitution, but it has been ruled that Amendments such as the 4th and 14th hold that such a right does exist. In addition, Amendment 10, holding all non-enumerated rights as part and parcel to the people of the states can also hold jurisdiction here.

There was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Georgia who was opposed to the Bill of Rights, not because he didn't want one, but because "...if we attempt to enumerate these rights, some fool in the future may attempt to hold that these are the full measure of a citizen's rights" and thereby limit our rights to them.

El Mooko Grande isn't calling strick constitutional interperators fools, the newly found state of Georgia is.

Strict constructionism would mean that separate but equal was just fine, that it is perfectly fine for workplaces and schools and even the government to discriminate based on gender/age/race - as long as the people can vote.

Do we really want strict constructionism?
As a strict constructionist, I must say I do not find that in the constitution, but I do find in the constitution, the right to equal treatment under the law. Hence many of those things you speak of would violate the constitution, particularly the part involving the government or government contractor's. Because when you discriminate on gender, race, age, you are violating the right to equal treatment under the law.
I believe either the 14th or 15th amendment make this clear.

One of the biggest issues with the Constitution is the difference between what the Constitution says, literally, and how the words are interpreted.

An example that really gets me is how freedom of the press, originally just the freedom of people to print their opinions and beliefs has evolved into the Freedom of Information act which grants mandatory access to information.

It is not enough to just read the Constitution anymore. One must study the court rulings that have interpreted the Constitution and given it meaning in our times.

In Roe v. Wade, it was ruled that abortion was protected under the right to privacy. No such right to privacy is EXPLICITLY enumerated in the Constitution, but it has been ruled that Amendments such as the 4th and 14th hold that such a right does exist. In addition, Amendment 10, holding all non-enumerated rights as part and parcel to the people of the states can also hold jurisdiction here.

There was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Georgia who was opposed to the Bill of Rights, not because he didn't want one, but because "...if we attempt to enumerate these rights, some fool in the future may attempt to hold that these are the full measure of a citizen's rights" and thereby limit our rights to them.
And I must say, he was a good prophet for his prophecy did come true. Cause today, there are a great deal of people denying the existence of certain rights just because they are no where enumerated in the constitution.

As a strict constructionist, I must say I do not find that in the constitution, but I do find in the constitution, the right to equal treatment under the law. Hence many of those things you speak of would violate the constitution, particularly the part involving the government or government contractor's. Because when you discriminate on gender, race, age, you are violating the right to equal treatment under the law.
I believe either the 14th or 15th amendment make this clear.

You are thinking about the 14th Amendment, which does not make it entirely clear, or we wouldn't have needed the 15th, or the 19th.

As a strict constructionist, you are supposed to interpret the Constitution as it was intended by those who wrote it. Therefore, without new Amendments, the only rights granted to blacks and women are the right to vote.

One of the biggest issues with the Constitution is the difference between what the Constitution says, literally, and how the words are interpreted.

An example that really gets me is how freedom of the press, originally just the freedom of people to print their opinions and beliefs has evolved into the Freedom of Information act which grants mandatory access to information.

It is not enough to just read the Constitution anymore. One must study the court rulings that have interpreted the Constitution and given it meaning in our times.
Ah, but here one must be careful cause there have been times in history where even the US Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution to say the exact opposite of what was actually written in it. For example, that states could enforce Sunday laws, that the government could shut down newspapers that criticized its policies (Lincoln did this a lot during the civil war).
A better source is the author's of the constitution themselves.

You are thinking about the 14th Amendment, which does not make it entirely clear, or we wouldn't have needed the 15th, or the 19th.

As a strict constructionist, you are supposed to interpret the Constitution as it was intended by those who wrote it. Therefore, without new Amendments, the only rights granted to blacks and women are the right to vote.
If that was so, then why did those who wrote it, put a clause at the end saying it could be amendmended and that such amendments were part of the original document. In that light, a strict constructionist must also consider the amendments.

ok.. i didnt know this was bible class. Woman have the right to abortion but my own belief is that abortion should only be legal if the woman conceived under rape. Other than that.. it is their own stupidity for getting pregnant, therefore they should suffer the consequences and give the baby up for adoption if they cant take care of it.

ok.. i didnt know this was bible class. Woman have the right to abortion but my own belief is that abortion should only be legal if the woman conceived under rape. Other than that.. it is their own stupidity for getting pregnant, therefore they should suffer the consequences and give the baby up for adoption if they cant take care of it.
Under my proposed amendment, rape is not a justification for abortion. Hence, the reason why I expected the dems and women's rights groups to oppose it and the Reps and prolifers to support it. It was very surprising to find that it was the opposite.

If that was so, then why did those who wrote it, put a clause at the end saying it could be amendmended and that such amendments were part of the original document. In that light, a strict constructionist must also consider the amendments.

I am including the Amendments.

There are no Amendments stating that women and blacks should have the right to not be discriminated against. The only right strictly provided to them by the Constitution and its Amendments is the right to vote.

I am including the Amendments.

There are no Amendments stating that women and blacks should have the right to not be discriminated against. The only right strictly provided to them by the Constitution and its Amendments is the right to vote.
Wrong :D

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

14th Amendment.

You are the only one I have seen answer that question. The answer is no. Because the Constitution clearly states that the rights in it, are for people who have been "born" in the US. Since a fetus has not been born, then the answer is no.

According to this, we would not have to give rights to illegal immigrants. But we do even before they become legal citizens.

Wrong :D

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

14th Amendment.

You are not taking a strict constructionist view here.

The 14th Amendment was only *meant* to apply to white men, as evidenced by the fact that women and blacks were still denied the right to vote until later amendments.

You are not taking a strict constructionist view here.

The 14th Amendment was only *meant* to apply to white men, as evidenced by the fact that women and blacks were still denied the right to vote until later amendments.
All persons

Black's aren't people?

All persons

Black's aren't people?

Again, you are interpreting by what you think, not by what the writers intended, thus you are not a strict constructionist.

Besides, that only covers what the law may do. A strict constructionist would never apply it to the workplace or college admissions.

Again, you are interpreting by what you think, not by what the writers intended, thus you are not a strict constructionist.

Besides, that only covers what the law may do. A strict constructionist would never apply it to the workplace or college admissions.
I'm sorry? I'm damn sure that blacks are under the realm of people, do you disagree?

I'm sorry? I'm damn sure that blacks are under the realm of people, do you disagree?

I do not disagree, but the writers of the Amendment meant it to apply to white men, regardless of what language they used. And a strict constructionist goes by what the writers intended.

And again, even if we do take it to extend to all persons, it still does not extend past the law into the workplace or schools if you are truly a strict constructionist.

I do not disagree, but the writers of the Amendment meant it to apply to white men, regardless of what language they used. And a strict constructionist goes by what the writers intended.

And again, even if we do take it to extend to all persons, it still does not extend past the law into the workplace or schools if you are truly a strict constructionist.
Have proof of that?

Have proof of that?

Check out the 15th and 19th Amendments.

As for the second part, it is quite clear in the amendment.

Check out the 15th and 19th Amendments.

As for the second part, it is quite clear in the amendment.
No, if anything, the 15th says that blacks are clearly citizens.

No, if anything, the 15th says that blacks are clearly citizens.

No, it says they can vote. As the 19th does for women. However, the very fact that they were denied that right until specific amendments were added demonstrates very clearly that the 14th Amendment was not originally held to include them.

And are you going to address my second point?

According to this, we would not have to give rights to illegal immigrants. But we do even before they become legal citizens.
IN the case of California Proposition 187, the US Supreme Court ruled that illegal immigrants are not protected by the US Constitution and hence have no rights in America.

No, it says they can vote. As the 19th does for women. However, the very fact that they were denied that right until specific amendments were added demonstrates very clearly that the 14th Amendment was not originally held to include them.

And are you going to address my second point?
The 15th amendment was written to force the states from making laws (such as poll taxes) that were 'applicable' to everyone but only existed to prevent some people from voting. The 14th says nothing about the gender of the person, which is why the 19th amendment was passed.
14th
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
15th
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

You have to be a citizen for the 15th amendment to apply, and the 14th grants equal protection under the law to all citizens, ergo, the 14th amendment protection must be extended to blacks if the 15th amendment gave them the right to vote.


Now, as for your second part, schools are an arm of the state, and last time I checked, most laws pertaining to racial matters do not extend to private citizens that do not obtain money from the Government.

You have to be a citizen for the 15th amendment to apply, and the 14th grants equal protection under the law to all citizens, ergo, the 14th amendment protection must be extended to blacks if the 15th amendment gave them the right to vote.

The 15th Amendment would not even have been necessary (nor would the 19th) if the 14th had applied to all citizens. Unless, that is, women were not citizens until the 19th amendment was passed and blacks were not citizens until the 15th amendment was passed.

Now, as for your second part, schools are an arm of the state, and last time I checked, most laws pertaining to racial matters do not extend to private citizens that do not obtain money from the Government.

All schools are not an arm of the state.

And even if they were, it says equal protection under the law, not equal hiring. In other words, a law could not be passed that says "We won't hire blacks or women." However, in practice, it would be just fine.

As for private companies, have you never heard of a company being sued for wrongful termination due to discrimination? You haven't paid much attention to the law then.

what an odd question

if the supreme court says its a constitutional right (which they have) then its a constitutional right.

the supreme court isnt GOD so if they change their mind (like that whole seperate but equal thing) then it WONT be a constitutional right.

or if we lose our minds and put in an ammendment that bans abortion.

as i understand it it comes under our right to PRIVACY. as a pregnancy progresses it becomes no longer PRIVATE but very obviously public. so the right to abortion fades as the pregnancy comes into the public forum and the state has a stake in the obvious life being created.

The 15th Amendment would not even have been necessary (nor would the 19th) if the 14th had applied to all citizens. Unless, that is, women were not citizens until the 19th amendment was passed and blacks were not citizens until the 15th amendment was passed.

The 14th says nothing about voting. The 15th and 19th were to fill in gaps, but blacks were still citizens of the United States. Saying that they weren't is...well, silly, seeing as blacks held office in the south before the 15th amendment (say nothing of voting), and generally those people tend to be citizens.


All schools are not an arm of the state.

And even if they were, it says equal protection under the law, not equal hiring. In other words, a law could not be passed that says "We won't hire blacks or women." However, in practice, it would be just fine.

As for private companies, have you never heard of a company being sued for wrongful termination due to discrimination? You haven't paid much attention to the law then.
Most are.

Wrongful termination is slightly different the laws that you are referring to. The states are adding more laws, it isn't a constitutional right.

The 14th says nothing about voting. The 15th and 19th were to fill in gaps, but blacks were still citizens of the United States. Saying that they weren't is...well, silly, seeing as blacks held office in the south before the 15th amendment (say nothing of voting), and generally those people tend to be citizens.

So you are saying that the right to vote would not fall under the purview of "equal protection under the law"? Interesting.

And I never said that they weren't citizens. It was you who suggested that by trying to prove that the writers of the Amendment really did want to include all citizens, even thought it is quite obvious that they left some out.

Abortion is not a constitutional right, it is a basic human right. Even in this day and age in a modern country like the US, Childbirth is still one of the top 10 causes of death for women 18-25, in less developed countries it is even riskier. Despite horror tales of botched backroom abortions that right to lifers love to spread, modern abortions are much less risky than childbirth to the mother. Don't take this as an endorsement of abortion, it's not, I just don't believe anyone has the right to empose any controls over someone elses body, especially if it places that person in an unwanted risk (even if the odds are good). Some things go beyond the constitution.

Well, as abortion is based on the right to privacy and the constitution does not grant a right to privacy, then the answer is no.
Yes abortion is a constitutional right (as a matter of empiracal fact). Evidently the Constitution does grant privacy rights.

The constitution does, however, protect the right to life. This being said, the life of both the fetus and the woman must be given equal consideration.
No the constitution does not blanketly 'protect the right to life'. The Constitution prohibits States from depriving a person of life without due process. Even if an unborn child is a person, and even if the State refusing to intervene in a women's reproductive choices could be conceived as 'depriving life', the fact is abortion does not deprive a person to life without due process because the courts have been asked to apply due process to the question of the legal status of abortions. The subsequent ruling fufills the criteria of 'due process'.

Due process here being fulfilled by 3 doctors (who don't work for the abortion clinic) saying that the woman will die or be so severly disabled physically or mentally as to render life unbearable, or that the fetus will die or be born in a vegetative state.
Due process does not mean 3 doctors saying a women will die. Due process means that proper and correct legal proceedures have been applied.

The 14th amendment states that only those who are born on US soil have rights that are protected by the Constitution.
No, it doesnt. Nor does it imply as much.