Roe v. Wade: Privacy and Liberty | The U.S. Supreme Court
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 тра 2022
- The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade declared a right to an abortion as part of a right to privacy-a term not found in the Constitution. The Court’s second landmark decision on the issue, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), gave abortion rights a new grounding in an understanding of liberty that marked an explicit rejection of the Founders’ belief in an unchanging human nature. In this lecture from Hillsdale College's 2017 FREE online course, "The U.S. Supreme Court," Dr. Adam Carrington reveals how the Supreme Court arrived at these novel readings that departed so significantly from the Founders’ understanding of natural rights, liberty, morality, and the purpose of government.
To enroll in this FREE online course, click the link below:
online.hillsdale.edu/landing/...
Support Hillsdale College: secured.hillsdale.edu/hillsda...
Visit our website: hillsdale.edu
Learn from our online courses: online.hillsdale.edu
Read Imprimis: imprimis.hillsdale.edu/
Undergraduate programs: www.hillsdale.edu/information...
Graduate School of Statesmanship: www.hillsdale.edu/academics/g...
Graduate School of Government: dc.hillsdale.edu/School-of-Go...
Listen to Hillsdale Dialogues Podcast: blog.hillsdale.edu/online-courses
Hillsdale College is an independent institution of higher learning founded in 1844 by men and women “grateful to God for the inestimable blessings” resulting from civil and religious liberty and “believing that the diffusion of learning is essential to the perpetuity of these blessings.” It pursues the stated object of the founders: “to furnish all persons who wish, irrespective of nation, color, or sex, a literary, scientific, [and] theological education” outstanding among American colleges “and to combine with this such moral and social instruction as will best develop the minds and improve the hearts of its pupils.” As a nonsectarian Christian institution, Hillsdale College maintains “by precept and example” the immemorial teachings and practices of the Christian faith.
The College also considers itself a trustee of our Western philosophical and theological inheritance tracing to Athens and Jerusalem, a heritage finding its clearest expression in the American experiment of self-government under law.
By training the young in the liberal arts, Hillsdale College prepares students to become leaders worthy of that legacy. By encouraging the scholarship of its faculty, it contributes to the preservation of that legacy for future generations. By publicly defending that legacy, it enlists the aid of other friends of free civilization and thus secures the conditions of its own survival and independence.
This was super informative, I relistened multiple times to fully understand. Well spoken.
Yes good intellectual , have to listen a bit carefully
Thank you for this unbiased, informative video. Videos like this are extremely hard to come by these days..
Your 100% correct. Too many liars these days. They’ve gone insane
The overthrow of roe vs wade is a trojan horse to legalize vaccine mandates. Good job fellas!
@@Jay-kk3dv please do explain your comment.
Great presentation. America needs more of these calm, reasoned discussions.
It’s not a discussion
Thank you for explaining this ruling. Logical understanding of this issue is so necessary right now.
How much more civilized would our country be if this was the standard for news and information. This was awesome!
He clearly injects politics into the defintions of 'right to privacy' (which is not mentioned in the constitution) and then 'liberty' - this about states having the right to legislate after being directly elected.
@@adarkimpurity but he doesn’t. That’s what the courts were saying given other laws referring to the “zone of privacy”
@@ToastUrbath I meant him and the people politicising those words in a certain direction, as you are now by linking it to other texts. He does state it isn't in the constitution, but the idea that they can inject basically legislation and meaning into it is the problem. Their argument amounts too, 'if it is private, you can disobey laws'. Which I'll admit is a hyperbolic interpretation, but still.
It was not "news." It was advocacy.
@@adarkimpurity But there is a constitutional right to privacy. Amendments are part of the constitution, and that's the 14th amendment. Due process and everything. The argument against abortion is the rights of the child being murdered.
This is exactly what I was looking for. No politics, no point of view, just facts and information. Please make more on other topics!!
Who cares what the founders thought? Laws should reflect what is best in today's climate.
He clearly injects politics into the defintions of 'right to privacy' (which is not mentioned in the constitution) and then 'liberty' - this about states having the right to legislate after being directly elected.
@@jerrygreene1493 The only thing that preserves our liberties is "what the founders thought." The stability and assurance of freedom that is guaranteed in the constitution is the veil between freedom and tyranny. If we don't ensure this veil stays up, we are screwed.
@@Rjasper499 The only thing that preserves our liberties is "what the founders thought."? Wrong. The constitution could go up in smoke tomorrow and we would right new laws likely reflecting the same freedoms we have now. The idea that we have to keep doing something some way because of what a handful of guys 200 years ago thought is ridiculous. The constitution should be a mobile document, continually modified to fit present wisdom.
@@jerrygreene1493 Allowing the Constitution of the US to be modified would be a grave mistake. You, in your foolishness, think otherwise, but it certainly would. You cannot rely on laws to originate that preserve freedoms in absence of a all encapsulating constitution.
This was a really truly great 101 explainer, unexpectedly good.
He clearly injects politics into the defintions of 'right to privacy' (which is not mentioned in the constitution) and then 'liberty' - this about states having the right to legislate after being directly elected.
Thank You Hillsdale College. This is a great and informative presentation.
As usual, well conceived and well delivered.
This has been the best, most informative video I've seen on the topic. Thank you for providing this.
Thank you for elaborating the issue in a historical way. Even though I cannot agree with you, professor, I deeply appreciate your review. It so much better and clearer than all the news I watch and read.
@@GeorgeRPope ... you goof... there IS no constitution... anymore...
The constitution apparently is up for interpretation and the side that is in office... whether democrat... republican... or communist... THEY get to dictate the 'meaning' of the constitution...
'We the people' have their nose so buried in the Kardashians... Niki Minaj... and porn that they have zero clue as to what is happening to the USA...
Says 4 replies. I only see one. A discussion about the constitution and YT censors. F yt
@@goatgoatgoatgoatgoatgoatgoatgo UA-cam is busy making sure few people get to opine about it.
@@GeorgeRPope The Constitution is very clear on corporate personhood? Oh right, it’s not yet a by judicial decree it appears. 🤷🏻♂️
“Strict constructionists” and their reliance on “express intent”… until they abandon that concept for political and ideological reasons.
@@dipthongthathongthongthong9691 What is your issue with corporation being a product of a group of people?
Outstanding speech& so understand ale!!thank you ,Hillsdale!!!!
That was an outstanding explanation
Thank you Hillsdale college, this has been very helpful.
Former EMBRYO here...
Glad to be alive.🙂
*Embryo
@@adrianaacevedo6732 oh thank you😅
We need an update on this!
Excellent explanation!
How come I didn't find this channel before? This was an excellent explanation.
You didn’t find it because THEY didn’t want you to find out the truth.
They hide the truth. So there's that.
Very educational and informative...relevant and timely. Thank you!
Top presentation. 🌹
Helpful video, thanks.
Thank you Dr. Adam Carrington. It helped me understand why this issue is so controversial.
Even full-term infants cannot live without the mother or another caregiver at the very least. The mothers body, in fact, is the infants habitat during pregnancy and well beyond delivery. So the idea that at some point along the way in pregnancy child child is able to live “independently“ is not based on fact
Is there a place I can look to see what other decisions were made using casey or row v wade? I'm curious what other rulings (outside of the few examples) were based on that logic.
Well done, thank you.
Fairly good legal outline. Kind of skips over the whole 9th Amendment. Madison was explicit in his fear that listing certain rights in the Bill of Rights would mean those not written down wouldn't be recognized. The 9th Amendment was supposed to cure that fear. So following down a legal argument that a "right to privacy" is not explicitly found in the Constitution therefor it cannot exist wouldn't square with the 9th Amendment.
So you really do have to address reasoning in Roe directly. Is it a proper application of the 9th Amendment? How do you apply the 9th Amendment? It's a tricky question, but given the common-law of the time I think you can say that the reasoning is proper. Bans on "Pre-Quickening" abortion didn't arise for several generations after the founding. It was very much an 19th Century phenomenon.
Jefferson would disagree.
I agree with you. but the 9A was not addressed on either case. so it should get addressed here. Alito also blew it off in his decision which find remarkable. The whole point ofvtge 9A is that you have the right, unless the govt stops you. ignoring it means you only get the rights the goverment gives you
@@michaelm8460 exactly but hey 9A is pretty inconvenient for that women controlling cult on SCOTUS
Your body your choice is limited No one has the right to commit suicide. No one has the right to murder another. So what gives them the right to choose death for their precious innocent baby that has no voice to say otherwise?
Suicide is actually really good point. I would argue that the state shouldn’t be able to prevent suicide. It does interfere with the individual’s right to liberty. The murder of another born and living person is easily prohibited on the basis that you can’t use your liberty to take the life of another. Anti-abortion proponents, of course, say that’s exactly what a mother is doing by taking the life of her unborn child. But there is the fundamental issue: is an unborn child entitled to the same rights as those of us who have been born? Catholic theology says yes. Other theological traditions say that the person is not a person until born. The Supreme Court essentially split the difference.
Wonderful, Thank You
Thank you for this. Now, if we can only get everyone expressing an opinion on the matter to watch it!
It's the sort of thing I would rather have in written form. He does tend to drone on slowly and tediously.
They won't watch it. Even though it's a completely unbiased analysis. The brainwashing is too strong.
Wouldn't a right based on privacy be based on the 4th?
Also, wouldn't the existence of the 14th and 13th preclude the court from making this decision, showing that even if there's a penumbra, if it's too distance from the core text it must be added to the core text in order to be enforced?
Also, with the 13th, it's clear that the constitution, when an issue is contentious, it does support the "erring on the side of caution" like the texas legislation did.
Also, the "person born" would imply one does not need to be born to be a person.
No amendment gives any rights or takes any away. Up until the replacement of the 13th it was commonly know that the constitution was the limitations of there authority. And the choice hasn't gone anywhere but the ability to destroy a man's seed is not her choice to make and no man has been allowed to abort their parental responsibilities at child support hearings. So take responsibility for the choices you make.
The "man's seed" is inside the woman's body. Abortion is a legitimate scientific birth control device.
The privacy argument is flawed anyway; we have tens of thousands of regulations that tell a doctor what they can do, who they can do it to, when they can do it and how to do it. We interfere in doctor patient care, at every possible turn.
@@marcion7565 poor reasoning as biology contradicts that belief. Some people can certainly believe other human beings are just a bunch of cells and can be terminated at will.
@@marcion7565 Person has been a synomon for human though some hypothetical non humans are also humans. Only the abortion debate and eugenics made that debatable. Biology is what started the pro life movement in the 19th Century. Before that quickening was the standard of human life.
I remember when this law passed. I was shocked!
What law is that? No laws were passed, the court does not write law it interprets it...Until 1973 that is, then they invented law and rights that don't exist....
@@michaelroberts7770
I'm not an expert, but I think there is a thing called case law.
(I'm in no way saying that RvW was valid or not.)
The Roe decision (written by one of the conservative judges on a conservative court, btw) had the effect of nullifying several Texas statutes. So it more accurate to say it invalidated statues already on the books.
🤔 Thank you for this presentation. Informative, well spoken and clearly presented. I came away rethinking some of my positions and wil be listening to this presentation a few more times.
Does anyone know of any articles of the same vein as this video? Looking to delve deeper
4:00 Is Adam claiming a right does not exist if not expressed in the Constitution??
It only means it is unconstitutional
There should not be any federal law that is unconstitutional
States have the right under the 10th
Like legalizing marijuana
@@DieGlobalists No states do not have the right to pass unconstitutional law, unconstitutional is unconstitutional Nation wide..
No. If a right is not listed in the Constitution, it therefore is not a "constitutional right" and therefore it is not a debate for the Supreme Court to decide. Just like there is no "right to life" in the Constitution, yet the government knows it exists under the Declaration of Independence.
@@uni4rm Are you saying we get our rights from the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?
@@uni4rm Why doesn't the 9th Amendment apply, which essentially states that just because a right is not listed, does not mean it does not exist, that the Constitution was never meant to be an exhaustive list, but a process to mediate those conflictual social issues and laws.
Also, there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates an approach to understanding and enforcing fundamental rights ONLY to the extent such rights are “deeply rooted in text and history.” That approach is itself political in that it loads the dice against any modicum of social change, inherently in favor of one side of the political spectrum. The method of interpretation is just as important as the right itself in this case; separate and intertwining lines of cases protect bodily autonomy, privacy, and liberty from State intrusion.
The point is that the "social change" should not be left up to the Supreme Court. Yes their function IS essentially a conservative one, i e upholding and preserving the *preexisting* constitution. You want social change, vote for it (and provide convincing arguments for others to do so as well).
@@frankdayton731 Again, the interpretation of the preexisting Constitution does not require an originalist approach. That is exactly why the Constitution is written in such vague terms-because the founding fathers knew definitions of “property” and “liberty” and so forth would change over time. The Constitution is written so that it can apply over time to a changing context
@@Wydeedo what exactly is "vague" about property or liberty? Liberty (as a principle) had a well established meaning in the 18th century when the constitution was written, it wasn't this nebulous hard to decipher thing. Slaves and convicts had their liberty restricted, freedmen didn't.
@@frankdayton731The terms themselves are vague-no historian or legal mind can legitimately state that there was ONE definition of Liberty in the 1700s; and ironically, that view wouldn’t matter with respect to the Liberty interests protected by the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the 1860s; at even that time, women were not considered people, but property of their husbands or fathers. So as a substantive matter, we shouldn’t be looking to 1800s common law as a means of determining a woman’s liberty interest in todays country
The fact that there were folks who ratified the Constitution who believed in slavery AND folks who were staunch abolitionists should show you that “liberty” was susceptible to different definitions, even in the 1700s; other vague terms in the constitution are no different: “unreasonable,” “seizure,” “due process,” “property,” “privileges and immunities,” “tax,” “commerce” - there are thousands of cases discerning the meanings of these terms. Get off your high horse in purporting to know the one true meaning of any of the above by only looking at one perspective from hundreds of years ago
You dropped this, King 👑
I donot recall where in the federal government laws where it says the federal government has any jurisdiction on a state case that does not conflict with any federal/constitutional laws. Walking down the stairs can cause a persons death so should stairs be banned?
"Alleged right to privacy."
Delivered like that isn't a disturbing, chilling thing to say.
'Privacy' in this context is merely a euphemism for murdering your own baby.
The 4th Amendment is to prevent the government from rummaging through your stuff without a warrant... not to make sure that you can kill a baby that you find inconvenient.
It’s almost like he forgot that the ninth amendment is a thing…
@@michaelgrant2099 the 9th doesn't matter in this discussion as it was not the amendment used to justify the rulings.
@@darkendbeing it was in the Goldberg concurrence for griswold. It’s also clearly falsifies the idea that the Supreme Court can’t identify unenumerated rights- which is the normal complaint about roe.
@@michaelgrant2099 we're aren't talking about the concurrence though we are talking about these 2 cases.
Did you miss that first thing?
“Something, liberty and pursuit of happiness”?
That was my thought too. Granted I think it's a poor interpretation either way because the 14th amendment is referring to court trials. But if you're going to extrapolate the right to liberty (unless due process of law determines that you have lost that right) beyond that context, you have to do the same with life too.
So what happened to liberty?
@@jonalderson5571 as I commented earlier, this part of the constitution is talking about court trials. So the liberty is referring to no incarceration without due process. However, even if it were just a general right to liberty being written about in this section, liberty doesn't mean freedom to do whatever you want. You still have to follow the laws. You can't just go out and kill someone. So, if a state determines that the child in the womb is a life, the child's right to life would supercede the mother's right to liberty.
That is the DOI, not the Constitution. Time and again it's been ruled the DOI has
no legal standing
Great objective lesson. Thank you!
Great Lecture! Allowed some clarity to form a moral thought as to how we arrived at such decision. Initially, I think the plausible reasoning behind SCOTUS to overturn this, was in essence, because the courts were allowing the pure definition of Liberty to become an amorphous noun that could be shaped into however such cases were approached. Once again Hillsdale, keep up the good works!
An individual's rights must be weighed with MORALITY, with what CAN and what OUGHT to be done as deciding factors.
Right, as a substantive (my right, his right), designates the object of justice. When a person declares he has a right to a thing, he means he has a kind of dominion over such thing, which others are obliged to recognize. Right may therefore be defined as a moral or legal authority to possess, claim, and use a thing as one’s own.
🙄
You only have the right to do what is right.
So by that notion, theoretically, a pregnant women has domain over the baby, a right, which gives her the ability to seek a life ending procedure for whatever reason at whatever time?
@@manniefresh3425 No, your reasoning is WRONG because MURDERING an innocent child is IMMORAL and OUGHT NEVER to be done!
An unborn child at conception is an autonomous person with its own DNA profile.
@@manniefresh3425 A five-week old embryo isn't a baby.
Why is bodily autonomy considered the ultimate virtue?
@Thomas
Based on who gets to decide.
Elections are important because they also define our justice system.
@@sofly7634 That doesn’t really answer my question.
Because those that exalt "bodily autonomy" as the ultimate virtue, really are saying I'm selfish instead of selfless. Their goal is to do what they want, pursue pleasure, and avoid the necessary consequences of it. That's why.
Then men should never claim bodily autonomy in any situation...including mask wearing
@@jnayvann Why? My question was about "ultimate" virtue. One that trumps all other virtues.
Thanks. I just learned.
What about Blackstone, applied by the authors of founding documents
If I commit a crime can I scream they are violating my right to privacy when they get subpeonas and search warrants to gather information?
You might want to take a look at the fourth amendment.
Notice the equation of "The state cannot search your body without a warrant" with "The state cannot regulate what you do with your body". The only precedent the Constitution sets is that there must be good *reason* for you to be searched. Likewise, there should be (and is) good reason to regulate what a woman does with her body when she's carrying another human being within.
Technically, the government regulates each person's body constantly.
@@kerwinbrown4180 For sure! But I was addressing the more specific concept of actually taking jurisdiction over a person's body itself.
@@Vic2point0 it's called drafting.
I can't believe I didn't know about Griswold and I have been studying abortion for 25 years. I only studied Roe and Casey. Thanks for the information.
There is no privacy from the father of the child. "A separate life would negate privacy claims"
I'm fascinated by contrasting and comparing how the Court treats abortion, and the 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms. Unlike abortion, the Right to keep and bear arms IS specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, with a provision that it "shall not be infringed". Despite that, the Court has seen fit to allow individual states and even cities to enact the most restrictive laws, up to and including near total prohibition in some cases.
Abortion rights activists and their politician allies act as if Roe v Wade is engraved in stone, forever unquestionable and unchangeable. Yet, those same Democratic politicians loudly proclaim that the District of Columbia v Heller(2008) Supreme Court decision that affirmed that "the 2nd Amendment protects an individual Right to possess a firearm" was wrongly decided, and have vowed to appoint Justices who will overturn it.
It’s called leftist hypocrisy and nothing new
Regulation is not an infringement... You're right that some of the laws go way too far though.
@@LadyRubyEye if you were to apply the same standard that the court has applied to abortion, I would argue that the vast majority or "regulations" form an "undue burden" on the citizens to exercise their rights.
@@basketball9013
That's probably true... Imagine getting arrested for a plant?
Would abortion rights activists be okay if the pro life people reassured them that they didn't want to outlaw abortions, they only wanted to enact a few "common sense abortion safety laws"? Probably not. Yet that's the game gun control advocates play with the 2nd Amendment; more and more laws, regulations, and restrictions that make it ever more increasingly cumbersome, expensive, burdensome and difficult to be able to legally buy and own firearms.
Excellent unbiases summation. UA-cam needs more of this type of analysis.
This is TOTALLY BIASED.
No one ever told me there was a 24 hour waiting period after receiving that information, nor anything about spousal consent. Monday, December 5, 2022 @ 6:52 AM, Eastern Standard Time, USA.
Then by the definition of liberty by the court it's up to the individual to make those decisions . The meaning of life by one's own concepts and not by majority rule , more over by the will of a minority .
Has everyone forgotten that the Constitution is not the only document that gives US citizens rights? The Declaration of Independence gives all the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. By denying the right to Life, you also deny the right to the Pursuit of Happiness. Science says that life begins at conception. This means the unborn fetus in the womb has the right to life just as much as any other citizen of the US.
Our rights are pre-existing. These documents do not give or grant the right to life... they merely protect them -- but if our elected representatives do not follow the Constitution, what effect does it have?
For example, it's illegal/unconstitutional for the American government to spy on citizens without a warrant. But they do it anyway. Or they have been caught several times, fraudulently obtaining warrants. This is already a federal crime (18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law), as well as being prohibited by the Constitution.
What is to stop them, if the DOJ does not prosecute them? The system is so corrupt that nobody is following the Constitution. And the MINUTE it leaks that the SCOTUS might overturn an incorrect opinion (Roe v Wade doesn't even come close to following the Constitution), these sick freaks threaten violence in the streets. They're literally terrorists.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Just me being nit picky, but the fetus should not be considered a citizen. Citizenship, pursuant to the Constitution, is conferred upon birth. However, with that said, the fetus should still have the same rights as an immigrant or someone with a visa. And that includes the right to not be killed.
@@ggggloveking9419 go find your Bible and read Numbers chapter 5 verses 11 thru 31
@@ggggloveking9419 a fetus has the rights of an immigrant?? PUT IT IN A CAGE THEN
Interesting exploration of the case, thanks. What I wonder - if "Roe" does get overturned, is whether that'll be enough to get the legislature to actually address it. It does seem reasonable that, as long as they can hide behind Scotus, the parties were perfectly happy to douse the topic in kerosine for political gain... maybe when it has consequences they'll actually try to find a compromise. Or maybe voters will finally see throug the charade and punish both parties if they don't.
Gonna be a risky experiment though.
Every election from now until the day we die, will be decided by abortion stances. Look how bad it was, when they couldn't even do anything about it.
It's nice to see that there's people out there who understand how this theatre they put on in Congress works.
This is my theory. Regardless of the side you agree with, both are encouraged to engage in apoplectic rhetoric and write laws NOT based on how to best address the issue but how to signal to voters and create/avoid legal challenges.
@@Tijuanabill
That's the instinctive view. It may be true. But I don't think so. I think it was this bad, *exactly because* they couldn't do anything about it. Both parties could nonstop spout their caustic bile, and they knew they would never ever have to deliver.
Now there will be consequences. The largest faction are those who care both for mothers and for children. Those who are neither pro-life or pro-choice, but pro-compromise. Their vote just got into play, and both parties can be annihilated if they piss off these moderates.
Might be a few rough elections, but if the American public has any rationality left, it should get solved in an election or two. Admittedly, that's a significant "if".
why would they actually address it when instead they can instead use it to fear monger and rally up their based every 4 years :)
So I have to ask. Does Casey supersede Roe? Maybe I misunderstood but it sounds like if Roe is overturned, nothing changes as a women's right to abortion is based in Liberty (Casey).
Good unbiased presentation.
It seems clear to me, that the Constitution was designed to specifically and surgically to carve out areas where individuals have a right to privacy. To interpret those partial rights to privacy (while each still remaining complete on their own) as making up the whole of a general right to privacy seems a stretch.
Not necessarily a right to privacy, but a right to secure personal property since the colonists were forced to shelter British soldiers.
@@ernestimken6969 that essentially is a right to privacy... but on a more basic human level. That privacy is ab extention of fundamental human dignity... not an excuse to get away with murder because it's happening inside of someone else.
The constitution address specific issues with each amendment. Adding things to it should be done by Congress. It's always been done this way. Not in the court of law.
The only thing being carved out are body parts of a fetus.
@@ianwinslett5013 But then what purpose does the 9th Amendment serve?
So the question remains on the question of liberty, can the government regulate liberty on the basis of their (that is the governments) morality? The question is can government regulate morality and if so, who’s morality? If it on the basis of a Christian morality, does that not violate the clause in the first amendment against the governments “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”?
Read more of Jefferson's letters.
@@michaelschaefer1904 Regardless, the point is that government is there to protect our rights and not establish their version or any version of morality.
The handwriting on the chalkboard is amazing.
Nice, this convinced me the pro-abortion arguments were correct from the start.
Thank you for your presentation. It was well articulated. Unfortunately, in your reference to what our founding fathers intended by implication of the time that they lived in you neglect to acknowledge that abortions were legal in the United States until the mid 1850, when the AMA was formed and men took over the healthcare for women. So despite our nations history regarding faith and religion, it was not until the AMA's formation and men taking over healthcare for women that this even became an issue. Even in his draft opinion Alito makes note of our "rich history" as if abortion did not exist prior to Roe V Wade. it is also worth noting that 62% of abortions that are performed are for women who do identify as having a specific religious affiliation. Further, of that 62%, 60% identify as Catholic and Evangelical Christians. I believe this is the case because these two groups also either prohibit or strongly discourage birth control. Although these cases, past and present, are regarding a woman's right to receive medical care to terminate a pregnancy, there is a lot more going on here than just that issue. If we try to live in that vacuum we are heading down a road that most Americans, including Christians, will not like.
So Catholics "...either prohibit or strongly discourage birth control."
Yet by your own example the majority of abortions performed are performed on Catholic women... AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL.
Either they're only devout enough to not use birth control during sex or it's another example of how religion is just a bunch of hypocritical bullshit.
I won’t disagree with what you are saying, this issue can’t be solved at the ballot box it has to be solved in the culture. It should be a state issue and we hash it out there. Along with that debate we need to re debate the presence of a religious education in our public schools as the founders intended and was debated in the Northwest Ordinance around the time of the founding which would indicate the founders position at the time. We need to go back to decentralized government with the exception of a strong military, defense of our borders and negotiation of tariffs and trade deals. Healthcare, education, highway maintenance etc all need to be states issues so that we can highlight through the experience of the individual states what works and doesn’t work.
@@jkb921 I have two comments on your response. First, when our country was founded the population was 2.5 million over 13 states. Today we are a country in excess of 330 million spread over 50 states and several territories. To insure that all US citizens enjoy the same rights and protections these should be established at the federal level. Otherwise we leave it to the whims of each state. Second, with regards to your comment on religious education I would ask how you decide which belief system is taught in a school? I have no problem with teaching about religion in our school, but you cannot teach to a particular faith, or subset thereof.
The argument comes down to restrictions.
Most people do not agree with banning abortions.
Majority of them demand restrictions.
The problem comes from the partisan politics pushing the issue to the radical on both sides. One side now demands the ability to abort no matter what. While the other hears that, and decides that that kind of thinking could not be allowed, and since they already gave that inch and a mile was taken, from their perspective, and now they’re likely going to want both that mile and that inch back.
@@grandspellcaster5761
Partly true.
Its the media giving voice to the far left and far right because middle America's point of view gets them no where.
who says abort matter what?
@@michaelm8460
What? Make sense please.
Word.
You need life before you can have liberty. That baby has the right to life liberty and pursue it's happiness.
“Roe and Kasey seem to be going nowhere for the foreseeable future …”
That statement didn’t age well 😂
It would have gone nowhere. But Trump unexpectedly won, and with ideological bias and dumb luck, he got to elect 3 conservative judges who were dishonest about their intentions towards Roe vs wade and respecting precedent.
It’s well known worldwide that Hillsdale College is the epicenter of Constitutional wisdom in America. And it’s well known that Hillsdale’s followers, as exemplified in the comments here, are paragons of advanced thought. There is that saying, “Intelligent people are willing to be self critical. Ignorant people think they are brilliant.”
Not good to speak in absolutes
LoL
Lmao yup it’s practically common wisdom haha what a joke
You can be self critical and know you’re a cut above the rest, the intelligent don’t need to be mired in self-doubt. Otherwise agree with much of this, and it’s worth saying.
"Constitutional wisdom"? Yours is a question-begging statement and question begging is a logical fallacy, which is the opposite of wisdom. Hillsdale College is one of the foremost centers of conservative indoctrination - imho.
Pretty clear in the US Constitution that EVERYBODY(this should include unborn children) has the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUTE OF HAPPINESS. It's the first one. Killing a unborn child is violating THEIR right to LIFE!
Godspeed
If the right to medical privacy is paramount, why then are hospitals forced to inform law enforcement of gun shot wounds and potential domestic abuse?
I would suspect because those are criminal acts.
@@trailrunner925 seeing as how murder is a crime as well and the Texas law challenged in Roe viewed abortion as such then why allow for privacy?
@@travissmith2211 Let me refer to better minds than mine. On the SC gov website, they quote Alexander Hamilton's view on the matter as this: ...𝙄𝙛 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙗𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜, 𝙈𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙪𝙚𝙙, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙗𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙖 𝙗𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨, 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙥𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙨𝙖𝙣 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙧𝙞𝙩.”
@@trailrunner925 my point is not of the "public political bargaining". I'm pointing out direct comparisons. Read closer and try not to be too wrapped up in quotes that are not relevant no matter how much you paid for a college to teach them to you.
@@travissmith2211 I thought I *DID* answer your question. The Texas law regarding abortion as murder is a _direct result_ of public political bargaining, is it not? There is no consensus when life in the womb begins. That's my understanding.
Regarding the act of gun shootings in ER/s, there is consensus that life outside the womb, with a brain that interacts with the outside environment, communicates with, and acts upon the world with agency, liberty, and freedom of thought is in a much different state than that of an embryo (the stage at which almost all abortions occur). Certainly, we don't allow a pregnant woman to claim two deductions on her tax returns until AFTER birth because when it comes to money, life in the womb does not exist.
We The People haven’t had privacy since 911 !
True!! And now Homeland Security wants a "Ministry of Truth board"
Let us have the truth about our borders and actually how many illegals in US and how much child trafficking is occurring, hiw much Fentanyl is crossing over....
True.
I wonder how long it will be before fathers get to have some recognition in this debate…
The woman's father? Are women still the property of men and subject to their approval?
@@rachelraccoon5565
What? Is your head so far up your own behind that the lack of oxygen is making it difficult to think?
The irony is that he denounced correctly the Rule of Majority over Individual Rights. But in next sentence, he is justifying the Morality, A Majority Consensus, over Individual rights. HE is unaware of this contradiction or intentionally avoiding it.
He probably thinks that morality isn’t defined by majority consensus, likely the same view that the founders had. The entire constitution has a moral grounding: it’s immoral to kill or take away people’s belongings for no reason, so the government shouldn’t be allowed to do that, either. No morality, no constitution. Sorry!
@@reepicheepsfriend Give me an important example that a Morality in a Society is not formed by Majority, or at least accepted by Majority. None. Because there is no Enforcement of Morality except the pressure from others in the same society. So a Minority opposed , but majority endowed Opinion/View could not generate the Pressure to becomes Morality of the Society, especially over the long time and tradition.
Think about its carefully.
A pregnancy being an “undue burden” is reasonably inconsistent when considering the frequency of pregnancies within humans. Furthered by the fact that pregnancy is a consequence of another discretionary act.
It is only the woman who decides whether a pregnancy is an "undue burden." That's why it is a personal decision.
Precisely because of its frequency, a plurality of instances necessarily exist, including of course those where pregnancy is NOT a result of a discretionary act.
An individual has dominion over their own body. Period. No priest. No judge. No government official. I will literally die upon that hill. If you insist on violence, so be it.
@@giordanobruno2509 even if I grant that a person has complete dominion over their own body (which I don't, there are many valid regulations about what you can and can't do to your body). But for the sake of argument, I will grant that. That doesn't give you dominion of the body of the child in the womb. So, if you're gonna die on the hill of people having dominion over their own bodies, you should be defending the child's dominion over their bodies.
@@maryshafer9036 are you unaware of the fact that sex leads to pregnancy? There’s no undue burden when abstinence prevents the burden.
The Constitution didn't guarantee Viagra for men either
Ha ha ha! Good point!!!!
TRUTH BOMB.....
IF MALES COULD GET PREGNANT ABORTION WOULD BE A SACRAMENT......
YOU COULD GET AN ABORTION FROM A VENDING MACHINE ON EVERY STREET CORNER
So if I commit a crime in the PRIVACY of my home is it ok?!
Murder is not a right.
excellent summary, thnx. did the court not address the notion that - regardless when life is considered to begin - that once the fetus is considered alive, its "right to life" is at least equal to the right of the mother's supposed right to abortion? why would one human's inherent right be greater than another's simply because they are "older?"
In Roe v Wade, Texas tried to argue that the fetus was a person so the 14th amendment would equally apply to it, but when pressed, “the appelle conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds a fetus is a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment.” Likewise, the Court decided that the compelling point of life is at viability “because the fetus then has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb.” Hence why the state then has the authority to restrict abortions in the third trimester.
@@sorgeelenchus thnx. that's a very strange and not-well-reasoned idea to pick an arbitrary - and constantly changing - point as "viability"
@@nchinth there are a couple of interesting philosophical questions here: when do humans acquire rights, and at what instance does one person's rights usurp another's rights? In the first question, the answers seem to be at conception, at viability, at birth, or upon sentience/consciousness. I tend to lean toward sentience beginning somewhere around weeks 16 through 20 (although some science says later around 22-24 weeks, but probably better to err on side of caution). I don't think that prior to the point that you have any experience (pre-conscious state) that you can be said to have even lived at all. At least, not as a person, and I think rights are an issue of personhood, not life.
As for the second question, the whole point of the due process clause is that neither life nor liberty should be deprived without due process, so you lose your rights to state when you are found guilty of a crime. You can also use your life through capital punishment. But the state also recognizes self-defense so you could kill someone legally in self-defense if you feel threatened. There's the violinist analogy in ethics where person B is medically attached to person A without consent or knowledge, so that person B is dependent on the life of person A and the function of A's organs. The paper argues that B doesn't have a right to A's organs, so A has no ethical obligation to stay attached to B, even if disconnecting means B's imminent death. The paper says that is analogous to unwanted pregnancy, either through rape or even failed contraceptives. I think it's an interesting quandary in the instance when B's life is dependent (unviable) on A's life if both have equal rights, or if A's rights and liberty take precedence.
Good question "one human's inherent right be greater than another's simply because they are "older". How does one justify that?
This is because "life" requires context to be important. "Life" isn't intrinsically valuable on its own. The living situation is what matters. We agree that plant and animal life is worth killing for our own livelihoods - many times, in excess (eating excess calories vs just sticking to simply surviving). You can see that we make a clear admission that not all lives are equal.
For example, regardless of whether you agree with / disagree with euthanasia, it is considered "more acceptable" for someone who is experiencing immense pain and suffering to die than someone who isn't. It is "more acceptable" for a criminal to die than a law abiding citizen.
"Life" requires context to be important. So the real argument is whether or not a fetus has the moral context (personhood, agency, capacity to suffer) surrounding a life worth living.
"I notice that everyone who is in favor of abortion, was already born themselves." - Ronaldus Magnus
Not even a clever remark. Empty rhetoric.
Lmao
@@dipthongthathongthongthong9691 nutritious rhetoric
Rest assured that if I was aborted then I wouldn’t have cared one way or the other about this issue.
😂😂
Is it possible for the Court to overturn Roe, but uphold the Casey ruling?
I think Casey’s definition of liberty is right on the money.
To claim that liberty is defined by choice is antithetical to the definition itself. Liberty is not freedom and there is a moral component of liberty that does not show in freedom. I could choose to do very many things in this country, but I do not have the freedom to act them out (note that to say liberty in place of freedom would semantically change the meaning of the previous sentence to that of a moral statement).
So basically RvW was the Supreme Court taking the specific powers and limitations of the Constitution and inventing a generalization or umbrella to allow it to invent any right they wanted to reach the conclusion they wanted.
The Burger Court didn't "invent a generalization," so much as infer a conclusion. If you've read the decision, then you know the court's inference isn't the whim you seem to be suggesting. The "penumbra" to which you elude, was derived from a nearly 200-year tradition of case law that was shaped by reference to the Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments. The notion of the right to privacy or the right to be left alone, isn't hard to come by.
Suppose it was an unfortunate turn of events that every person that took part in creating the Constitution was a man...
He sounds Just Like Jason Chafetz.
Hello how are you doing Latina, Hope you're having happy Easter 🤯 weekend
The same people who don't want to see the Constitution grow and evolve are the ones who refuse to do so themselves.
The constitution isn't a "living document" where you can interpret it anyway you like simply because it's popular.
It's set in stone and can only be altered by legislative power.
Any other means is a judicial dictatorship. But I'm sure you would like it that way.
Roe v Wade is arbitrary and should've never been ruled in favor of by the supreme court... Courts don't make laws our elected officials do.
Great breakdown of the judicial side of this topic! The liberty stance is a good one, but it gets just as divided as the topic itself bc if you consider an unborn baby to be a person then it is also entitled to the same liberty. Therefore the ruling of abortion will always come down to if you think an unborn baby is a true life or not.
I don’t know about that. I think anyone who has studied embryology for more than a moment or two understands that a fetus is in fact alive. But so am I, and you’d be within your liberty to use lethal force on me if I were violating your body, even if I was unaware of doing so or unable to stop.
It's important to recognize that we don't consider life equal to personhood.
Bacteria is life. Taking anti-biotics is not homicide though.
It being human and being alive could confer personhood, but potentially not under our constitution.
Abortion was a regular practice when the constitution was written, as was pregnancy of course. If the writers intended to confer personhood to unborn children, they probably would have mentioned it somewhere.
@@Fearlessly91 imagine a scenario: conjoined twins are connected at the torso and share vital organs necessary for the continuation of life, does one of them have the right to unilaterally end their life? Or even to make an organ donation without the other's consent?
@@katilynwhitson3105 it is a LIE that medical abortion was a regular legalized practice in the 1700's. A myth told by pro-abortion advocates, and nothing more.
@@frankdayton731 People have been drinking herbal teas and eating plants to induce miscarriage for literal centuries. Wtf are you on about? 🙄
Penumbra of rights serves as a metaphor for application of the legal maxim of proportional justice. First articulated by Aristotle some twenty-five hundred years ago, Aristotle’s formulation of the idea of justice has become the polestar of Anglo/American jurisprudence for nearly nine-hundred years. Aristotle’s formulation of proportional justice is: justice consists of treating equals equally, and unequals unequally but in proportion to their relevant differences.
This maxim affords legitimacy to extrapolation of general rules of law from observations of the existence of a compilation of similar circumstances in which each receives similar treatment upon application of settled laws. The general rule is extrapolated from the similarity.
Within the discipline of logic, extrapolation is erroneous. It results in generalizations which cannot be put to a truth table. However, Aristotle’s formulation of justice vitiates the demands of logic that generalizations be expelled from rational thought. Proportional justice requires similarity rather than sameness. Similarity permits variations, logic does not.
Thus, while the term Cellphone does not appear in the Constitution, a challenge to Fourth Amendment protection of such recorded information is not seriously entertained by the courts on that account. Similar features require similar treatment. Similar treatment of similar circumstances is the essence of judicial reasoning and stare decisis. As an aside, charges of legislating from the bench and judicial fiat generally amount to no more than political defamation of extrapolation through sound judicial reasoning.
Roe recognized that there existed an overwhelming number of incidences in which the law protects intensely personal interests as private matters insulated from public scrutiny. Many of these matters involved consideration of a person’s interest in management of their own body. Roe recognized that a decision about terminating a pregnancy involved similar considerations about a woman’s body, and therefore involved a legitimate liberty interest. This determination did not end the inquiry, however. The Court went on to consider the state’s assertion that, apart from the expectant woman, another person’s life was at stake.
In regard to the latter issue, the conservative majority in Roe found themselves confronted with the fact that a twenty-five hundred year history of law within Western civilization revealed no instance in which the fetus had been regarded as a human being or person prior to birth. The state’s claim abortion concerned another human being was unsupported by precedent. The Roe court proceeded to invent the seemingly secular interest of potential life to serve as the public interest to be considered.
There was only one conservative justice on that court. This was not a decision by conservative justices.
Yes, a lot of metaphor, extrapolation, and invention in the Roe decision.
It's awful.
@@ggggloveking9419 If justice required sameness rather than similarity, we would use computers rather than judges to administer justice. Extrapolation is a dirty- word in logic, but the demand of proportional justice for similarity requires it in law. not in law.
@@brucebutler2746 Computers would make much better arbiters of Justice. This is why law students are taught early on to detach their feelings and emotions from the law.
As far as you saying extrapolation is a dirty word in logic, I'll let that statement stand alone.
@@ggggloveking9419 I think having computers administer justice would get a worse reception than traffic cameras. Imagine a person rushing their child to the hospital at 2:00 a.m.. going through six intersections, slowing, looking, finding no traffic, but not stopping. Computer: judgment for revocation of license as habitual offender.
Great true story,book title-"Cowboy Mafia ".;*
First unalienable right is life. The unborn are life at the point of conception. It's that simple.
Protection of privacy?
*laughs in vaccine mandates*
Thats what I believe overturning Roe V. Wade is actually all about. We were never actually individually (federally or by state) mandated to get vaccinated. NY only ever mandated companies & events, not he citizens themselves - why do you think this is? They clearly would love to have mandated the people directly. Roe V. Wade however would cause a serious block with this passing through the federal courts.
People have a right, and choice, to have sex or not to have sex. Once a choice is made, the consequences of that choice must be dealt with. Something the pro-abortion folks completely ignore.
I’m a woman and 100% agree. I listen to my sister in law talk about her abortions in the same manner she talks about last weeks dinner and drinks. If you want to have a right to murder your child, okay, but don’t claim being pregnant is an undue burden, or be a hypocrite and when someone else say hits a pregnant woman in a car accident and the fetus is lost, the person who hit the woman can be charged with homicide because the fetus is protected by law. Yet when a mother plans to terminate their child, it’s now a right? Idk. Doesn’t make sense.
You only have the right to do what is right.
Been saying that for decades... The right to choose comes nine months before the birth.... Choose wisely....
You said people, but obviously meant women, since they are the ones who primarily face the "consequences" of sex. They are the ones who's lives are inexorably altered for all time. If men faced equally life-changing emotional, financial, societal and health consequences of pregnancy, birth and raising the child (especially given that America's safety net is not particularly robust), they would never accept those restrictions on their lives, liberty or happiness.
For now, yes. But with the future of male contraceptives (and contraceptives in general), those consequences will become a thing of the past, and so will the abortion debate.
Seems to me that in order to protect life and liberty, women who do not wish to have a child, should have access to contraceptive means.
They do. At drugstores. Walmart. Convenience stores. Etc Etc
@@somelikeithot38 pretty easy access too. You'd think that with a little forethought we'd never need to discuss the morality of abortion.... Hmm.
Was it or was it not Constitutional? If so, where is it written that gave these new rights? Either it's 100% Constitutional or it's not, name the law specifically? When did Congress vote it into law?
I hadn’t realized until now just how much ambiguity and irreconcilability plaid a part in the original ruling.
When does life begin? When is the mothers health considered at risk? And other such questions. Even today the pro abortion side wants these concepts to remain ambiguous to protect the ruling I suppose
And how about the elephant in the room
Someone who kills a pregnant mom is guilty of two murders.
Why Because the baby inside her is a human.
Connor's Law.
And because the mother never wished to abort the baby...
@@jnayvann
It still treats the fetus as a baby.
Even a woman attacked and killed on the way to an abortion center would be classified as a double homicide.
@@jnayvann so if someone doesn't want their baby it suddenly isn't a human?
@@jnayvann Right. The intention of the mother in completing the pregnancy is factored in to many state laws regarding this.
The Declaration of Independence affirms that We, the People, are Individual Sovereigns which delegate powers to their elected politicians and appointed Judiciary. Those Rights terminate at the tip of another Sovereigns Nose.
All decisions ought be delivered to Congress on a Majority Vote in House & Senate with President’s Signature. If Pocket veto, override with Majority Votes in House & Senate.
DOI has no legal standing
It's a fundamental wrong to consider an abortion a fundamental right without first considering exactly how many people's fundamental rights are at risk. The personhood issue is critical but neither at birth nor at conception can be supported rationally.
Who or what has the prevailing rights in the scenario of pregnancy? The person who owns the womb or the fetus inside of it? Should a fetus or zygote or according to some, a fertilized egg, have legal rights of potentiality that outweigh the right of a woman to exercise her bodily autonomy to not endure a pregnancy or become a parent. Does the person who owns a womb also own the fetus inside of it or would be considered something akin to a default power of attorney to the potential child? Or should a fetus or an earlier stage developing human be legally protected by the might of the state?
To me, it seems that if women are the ones burdened with the responsibility to gestating future human generations then it should be an absolute moral obligation to allow them to terminate a pregnancy for any reason or at any time.
Legal, safe, and accessible.
@@Andy-br1hq It's a contingent question. IF human rights mean anything at all, they must protect the most innocent person when they're least able to protect themselves. IF a fetus is a person, which ought to be something correlated with a functioning cognition, THEN we cannot put the rights of the mother above it, even if there are still ways an abortion can be ethical.
@@havenbastion If a fetus is given moral weight greater than the developed and self aware human who would have one in their womb, then the only outcome would be state coercion via a violent act to force the owner of the womb to carry a gestating human to full term. The other option would be for the state to provide all resources and medical attention required to facilitate a healthy birth. Carrot vs stick. Additionally it would reasonably follow that if the state is that invested in a woman carrying a pregnancy to term that it would be obligated to also provide the resources necessary to facilitate a healthy birth and potential for a fulfilling and productive life.
@@havenbastion
Based on logic, a zygote, embryo or fetus does not have individual political rights, since for staters they are not physically individuated via being inside another person and attached to them via an umbilical cord.
@@Dhorpatan A working brain is the most important dividing line for death so it ought to be for life too. And because we're talking about the bedrock of human rights we must err on the side of caution.
Here’s how I see the issue. I understand where doctors are coming from who believe in the worse case scenarios like if the mother’s life is in danger, if there’s no brain activity or heartbeat detected after a certain week or if there are severe deformities being formed. They don’t like the idea of abortion as a solution but they still have a respect for human life since they don’t want their patients to suffer in those cases. What I don’t understand are these feminists who wear handmaid costumes and parade with their coat hangers and “war on women” “my body my choice” and “women power” “down with the patriarchy” signs. They have the idea that being able to have an abortion whenever and for whatever reason makes them more free and empowered. You girls talk about your rights, your choices, your opportunities but what about the child’s rights, choices and opportunities? You don’t know what that individual will be able to contribute to the world if you deny it the chance to find out. You are considering ending a life that has every right to exist as much as you do. Why would you want that on your conscience for the rest of your life?
Some good points, but ONLY women know the tortures of misogyny ( which is malignant and promoted globally...I came to learn so late in life). I do believe it is a tragic and life altering decision. But, if a woman does her best to seek personal and private guidance from God..via prayer, do you believe other people- especially a " government" and court system highly populated by psychopaths and power-slimeballs... should have the power to negate that? To come between a person and her genuine attempts to know what to do? It would seem to violate religious freedom in a sense. The government has ZERO concern for anything but corrupt self-dealing. It is grotesque to imply otherwise. It does NOT care about life or justice or freedom.
I believe women would be better off if NOT dumbed down and if they really understood how society continues to USE them and abuse them without conscience. It's very insidious. Females would be better off with a shield of awareness about how relations with men are dangerous to THEIR lives. Perhaps men should assume MORE responsibility. Vasectomies. Abstinence. Which would prevent women from bearing the burden.
Many are psycho path without conscience. We are now at the point where many women's hearts have become seared and dead
There are many women who are psychologists and psychiatrists patients because of abortion. My ex-wife is one of them. You can't fool nature.
@@onion6foot no and that's not what this is either. You do well with the emotional talk. I know you guys keep coming up with new ways to justify your right to kill a human being but you have never and never will have the right. That's what God says in the first place. So don't bring Him into to it but that's your way of baiting Christians. But there are some of us who actually know what the Bible says and more importantly who He is. Second a man is not a danger to women just because he's a man. Your double standards betray you. No matter how much you fantasize they were made MALE and FEMALE. A man has the same rights as a woman and vis versa. But when you make stupid choices there are consequences for those choices it doesn't mean your rights have been taken away. You cannot condemn an innocent to death because of your bad decisions. There are plenty of women who leave their children just like deadbeat fathers do. So tell me again how a woman is left with burdens? If your going to ask for men to vasectomies tell women to get their tubes tied. Everyone has plenty of choices stop with the double standards.
@@onion6foot That's some impressive White Knight level SIMPing there. Both men AND women have responsibilities to the child. Men have 3 choices: abstinence, condoms, or be at the woman's and State's whim for 18+ years. Women have well over 100 different types of birth control, adoption, and abstinence. Just because a woman failed to choose a good man does not mean they should be able to add the murder of a child to their options. THAT is nothing but shirking responsibility for one's actions. Women hold the threshold to sex while men hold the threshold to commitment and resources. Just as men should not be sticking themselves in anything that stays still long enough, women should learn to keep their legs closed until they believe they've found a man who will stay with them.
Every human organism is first a human person and only accidentally a citizen, foreigner, outcast or other political subject.
The life of others is a public issue, no human is unattached to others as all have at least a biological mother and a biological father. The killing of a person by a person deliberately is a public, social act and concerns us all.
Democrats used to think they had a right to own Black people as slaves... The pattern is becoming quite clear. People with no moral principles register as Democrats.
It's none of your business what another person moral choice is
@@firebyrd437 That's just so totally incorrect. Every single society in the history of mankind has had laws, written and unwritten, which govern people's moral behavior for the benefit of society at large. All laws are moral judgements. It's why we have laws against theft, forcing seat belts while driving, and even Social Security tax.
Wrong. A human organism is NOT a person with legal rights. Legal rights are a codification of natural rights and there is NO natural right for a fetus to be born. A "fetus" is not a legal person. Mind your own business.
How come we dont have a understanding of when life begins as a nation. This would have not allowed roe vs wade in the first place or done the opposite now.
No no no, we did have an understanding of life but it’s like everything that happens in time, it is forgotten.
If the correct argument isn’t made often then people with a subjective mindset will pervert it.
Example, the reason why we got that ruling on Roe v Wade is because the argument of “Right of Privacy to abort”, which doesn’t exist.
But if we remember The Preamble to The Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of Happiness.
It existed at the founding of this nation.
We have stop forgetting our past unless we want to be lied to by subjective people in the end for their pleasure.
To take away or deny one any right(s) or potential right(s) with the justification that an individual or collective of individuals have a "belief" concerning that right(s), afforded to the individual(s), of which right(s) they want to remove from said individuals, is not the basis of good fair law making in a country that values liberty and justice, freedom and privacy. A belief held by a citizenry, without factual or scientific knowlege supporting that belief, is not a sustainable basis for law making or removal of already given rights to all the rest of the nations citizenry whom may hold other and competing beliefs on the same subject.