Jun 28, 2022·edited Jun 28, 2022Liked by Perry Willis
Hi Perry, Thank you for giving this decision context and analysis. I never thought 6/24/2022 would come in my lifetime, or ever. I am saddened by the opinion of people who justify accepting the decision on constitutional grounds. As if, the 1973 court violated the constitution in a 7-2 decision, and the 2022 court made it whole in a 6-3 decision.
It seems to me that the Zero Aggression principle wouldn't provide complete clarity on this matter. The notion of zero aggression assumes that there is a 'who' that is the object of aggression. The 'when' of the abortion question is partly about the point at which point a fetus becomes a 'who' that should be protected from 'aggression'. What duty of care does a parent owe a child and when does this start? This is what we the people must now deal with. Frankly, I would much prefer for each state to have its own referendum. Each political party is in the hands of those who want 'all' or 'nothing', and neither of position seems to represent the vast majority of voters.
I agree. There is a conflict of rights here between the mother and the fetus. We cannot wish that conflict away. So both sides have good arguments except that they try to pretend that the opposing view is completely wrong.
I think the key issue is how far you want to take the idea that an aborting mother and her doctor are committing murder. Do you really want to punish them the same way you would punish other murders? If the answer is no then you are admitting that the morality involved is complicated and fuzzy. Personally, I intensely dislike abortion. But I dislike back-alley abortions and/or arresting mothers and doctors even more. So I think we should seek to reduce abortions through persuasion and better birth control, rather than through criminal law.
The Constitution's Bill of Rights including the 9th Amendment didn't apply to to the states before the 14th Amendment,. 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." It think the right to abortion is found here, if it is found here. I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Roe should have been decided on equal protection grounds and I agree.
I think my view is similar to that, or maybe exactly that. The 9th Amendment secures a right to abortion. The 14th Amendment then protects that right federally.
But it also seems that a lot of people can agree that Roe was reasoned poorly.
Hi Perry, Thank you for giving this decision context and analysis. I never thought 6/24/2022 would come in my lifetime, or ever. I am saddened by the opinion of people who justify accepting the decision on constitutional grounds. As if, the 1973 court violated the constitution in a 7-2 decision, and the 2022 court made it whole in a 6-3 decision.
It seems to me that the Zero Aggression principle wouldn't provide complete clarity on this matter. The notion of zero aggression assumes that there is a 'who' that is the object of aggression. The 'when' of the abortion question is partly about the point at which point a fetus becomes a 'who' that should be protected from 'aggression'. What duty of care does a parent owe a child and when does this start? This is what we the people must now deal with. Frankly, I would much prefer for each state to have its own referendum. Each political party is in the hands of those who want 'all' or 'nothing', and neither of position seems to represent the vast majority of voters.
I agree. There is a conflict of rights here between the mother and the fetus. We cannot wish that conflict away. So both sides have good arguments except that they try to pretend that the opposing view is completely wrong.
I think the key issue is how far you want to take the idea that an aborting mother and her doctor are committing murder. Do you really want to punish them the same way you would punish other murders? If the answer is no then you are admitting that the morality involved is complicated and fuzzy. Personally, I intensely dislike abortion. But I dislike back-alley abortions and/or arresting mothers and doctors even more. So I think we should seek to reduce abortions through persuasion and better birth control, rather than through criminal law.
The Constitution's Bill of Rights including the 9th Amendment didn't apply to to the states before the 14th Amendment,. 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." It think the right to abortion is found here, if it is found here. I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Roe should have been decided on equal protection grounds and I agree.
I think my view is similar to that, or maybe exactly that. The 9th Amendment secures a right to abortion. The 14th Amendment then protects that right federally.
But it also seems that a lot of people can agree that Roe was reasoned poorly.
I want to see more pole analysis on other issues. Well done.
Thanks. I want to do more, but I'm too sick to concentrate now. Soon though.