Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

**Ibelsd** · May 23rd, 2016, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by mican333

It does mean that.

If a patient wants a certain procedure, the state has no right to interfere which means it can't interfere with the doctor providing that procedure.

And as I said before, rights are not absolute. Sometimes there are exceptions to rights so in some limited circumstances the state can interfere with one's rights to pretty much anything one has a right to. But the exceptions are quite limited and specific. For example, a policeman can legally enter someone's house without a warrant (thereby violating the right to privacy) if they are aware of a life-threatening situation from inside the house.

1) While not successful, groups have attempted to ban circumcisions.
2) Per the Hyde amendment, abortion is banned from being covered by Medicaid.
3) Doctors are prohibited from prescribing many types of medication.
4) There are bans on some types of gene therapy both at the federal and state level.

The state has a right to declare any procedure unethical or dangerous and, subsequently, ban it. The difference between abortion being protected and the doctor/patient privilege being protected is that under one, abortion would be immune from such bans and in the latter it is not. There is a difference in a someone's 1st amendment right to free speech and someone's "right" to abortion by way of the 14th amendment. The difference is that abortion, itself, simply is not a protected right per the Constitution.

**mican333** · May 23rd, 2016, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by Ibelsd

1) While not successful, groups have attempted to ban circumcisions.
2) Per the Hyde amendment, abortion is banned from being covered by Medicaid.
3) Doctors are prohibited from prescribing many types of medication.
4) There are bans on some types of gene therapy both at the federal and state level.

The state has a right to declare any procedure unethical or dangerous and, subsequently, ban it. The difference between abortion being protected and the doctor/patient privilege being protected is that under one, abortion would be immune from such bans and in the latter it is not. There is a difference in a someone's 1st amendment right to free speech and someone's "right" to abortion by way of the 14th amendment. The difference is that abortion, itself, simply is not a protected right per the Constitution.

Legally, it is. I mean the SCOTUS has ruled that it is.

Now, if you are arguing that it SHOULD not be protected, then we are back to something that is debatable. But I believe I've covered this already and none of your points counter it. I'm saying that just because people have the right to X, does not mean that the government cannot legally violate their rights to X. Sometimes the government has a legitimate reason to violate rights, such as the police entering without a warrant if they suspect a life is in danger.

So pointing out other examples of the interference with medical privacy does not show that:
1. There is no right to medical privacy
2. Abortion (in the first trimester) is a legitimate exception to the right to privacy.

**Ibelsd** · May 23rd, 2016, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by mican333

Legally, it is. I mean the SCOTUS has ruled that it is.

Now, if you are arguing that it SHOULD not be protected, then we are back to something that is debatable. But I believe I've covered this already and none of your points counter it. I'm saying that just because people have the right to X, does not mean that the government cannot legally violate their rights to X. Sometimes the government has a legitimate reason to violate rights, such as the police entering without a warrant if they suspect a life is in danger.

So pointing out other examples of the interference with medical privacy does not show that:
1. There is no right to medical privacy
2. Abortion (in the first trimester) is a legitimate exception to the right to privacy.

Legally, SCOTUS has offered that abortion is protected under the 14th amendment. I am not a lawyer, so maybe there is more case history there. Don't know. We are obviously debating what should be rather than making an actual legal argument here. We are arguing theoretically rather than trying a case in front of the court.

The legal distinction between an actual right to perform a behavior and a right conferred upon the existence of some other right is important. For instance, my first amendment right is near absolute. The government must go to great lengths to demonstrate a reason to abridge my free speech right. However, abortion is protected by way of the 14th amendment and the implicit right to privacy. Should the state continue to take over healthcare, then abortion will become less of a right and more of a federally granted privilege. We see this today as medicare cannot be used to pay for abortion and the ACA may not use subsidized funds to pay for abortion. If abortion was a right on par with free speech, then the federal and state governments would be compelled to pay for abortion services as part of their management of healthcare for all. The example of the lack of limits for free speech would be the National Endowment of the Arts. So long as this federally funded program existed, it was compelled to support all forms of speech, even those fundamentally offensive to the taxpayer and legislators. So, the government can either choose to end the program or tolerate offensive speech. However, with the ACA, no such concession to abortion must be made. This is the difference.

**mican333** · May 23rd, 2016, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Ibelsd

Should the state continue to take over healthcare, then abortion will become less of a right and more of a federally granted privilege. We see this today as medicare cannot be used to pay for abortion and the ACA may not use subsidized funds to pay for abortion. If abortion was a right on par with free speech, then the federal and state governments would be compelled to pay for abortion services as part of their management of healthcare for all. The example of the lack of limits for free speech would be the National Endowment of the Arts. So long as this federally funded program existed, it was compelled to support all forms of speech, even those fundamentally offensive to the taxpayer and legislators. So, the government can either choose to end the program or tolerate offensive speech. However, with the ACA, no such concession to abortion must be made. This is the difference.

Whether the government funds the NEA or under what circumstances they fund the NEA has no bearing on whether the average person has the right to free speech.

Similarly how, or if, the government funds certain medical procedures has no bearing on whether people have a right to have those medical procedures. So the ACA or whatever method the government uses to fund medical procedures has no bearing on whether there is a right to abortion.

There is a right to abortion regardless of how it is or is not funded.

**Sigfried** · May 23rd, 2016, 03:06 PM

Abortion is protected under the notion of a right to privacy which is an implicit right according to the court, best implied by the restriction on unreasonable search and seizure. This gives an underlying sense that the govnerment can't poke its nose into your private life without some compelling cause for the national good. AKA its no business of the state whether a woman has an abortion or not. Roe-V-Wade carves out an exception for later term abortions, post viability as it says, where it says the state has some case for protecting the unborn.

So while abortion is a right in the sense state's can't ban it outright, it is a right only by virtue of it being a private matter and there fore protected under the implicit right of privacy. By no means must the government provide it, but it neither must make in inacessible. Were the states to have a monopoly on the health care system, and then choose not to provide abortions, then they would de-facto be acting to prevent abortions and in violation of the law.

Not sure that helps the discussion or not but this is my understanding of it.

**Landrew** · May 25th, 2016, 06:49 AM

No debate is more futile than the abortion debate. No one will ever be convinced to move their own personal definition of where life begins; be it from conception, to a day before birth. There's no objective criteria for declaring the point where an embryo suddenly becomes a human being, with human rights.

**Sigfried** · May 25th, 2016, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Landrew

No debate is more futile than the abortion debate. No one will ever be convinced to move their own personal definition of where life begins; be it from conception, to a day before birth. There's no objective criteria for declaring the point where an embryo suddenly becomes a human being, with human rights.

Many people have changed their minds on the issue over the years and society has shifted back and forth as to what is allowed and what is not. Thus, not so futile. I think its true that it will never be solved for all time but the day to day engagement will go on so long as new humans are born and have to confront the issue for themselves.

**Landrew** · June 18th, 2016, 08:16 PM

The abortion debate is insoluble for one simple reason; there is no objective point where a human life begins. There are plenty of opinions, and some of them masquerade as "objective facts" but they are anything but that. A human life develops gradually; from 2 joined cells, which are the survivors from hundreds of other cells which die. Just as there is no objective point where a boy becomes a man, any such point is simply an arbitrary opinion.

This is why nothing is ever settled in an abortion debate.

**Nightlock** · March 16th, 2018, 03:13 AM

Abortion should be completely illegal. There should be prison sentences for abortion. It's murder. There should be no exceptions. They should choose to put the baby up for adoption if they don't want her/him. Abortion is absolutely selfish. Choosing to snuff out a life just because it isn't convenient for you. You never know what that child might have been or will be. They might even find the cure for cancer (not highly likely but a possibility).

---------- Post added at 12:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 PM ----------

The Roe vs Wade case was complete rubbish and should never have happened

**futureboy** · March 16th, 2018, 07:39 AM

Welcome to ODN, Nightlock!

While I've been refraining from engaging in abortion debates here recently due to the excessively emotionally-charged responses from most pro-lifers, I thought I should address your statements here.