Miners - difficult one! BUT MINORS SHD NOT BE FORCED TO GIVE BIRTH TO SATISFY THE NEEDS/DESIRES OF PARENTS!!!! Catholics can force Minor to give birth whilst STIGMATISING both mother & baby FOR LIFE!!!!!!!! Therefore minors should have right of privacy btn Dr & patient
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.
@@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.
@@rjkmusicmedia 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.
At what point do you hold the woman accountable for choosing to have sex ? Clearly no one cares about the man's situation and his capabilities of raising a child if the mother chooses to keep the child. This only promotes promiscuity and COMPLETELY unfair inequalities between men and women.
There actually are groups who argue this point and have put forward bills to allow the mother who has an abortion to be prosecuted. End Abortion Now is one such organization. But big Pro Life has had the bills killed in multiple states. Louisiana, Alabama, for example. Because Big Pro Life do not want to ever have the mother take responsibility even though she is the person taking the baby to be killed. It's not that baby killers are roaming streets looking for abortable people. But the mothers are sacrificing their own children.
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.
Roe v Wade was wrong because it was allowed based on privacy rights. If ending the life of a fetus is OK because it was decided by a woman and her doctor, is it ok for a woman and her doctor to decide to end the life of a two day old baby because os birth defects? Or end the life of an abusive husband? Woman have options to not become pregnant in the first place. Abstinence, condoms, birth control pills, IUD's and oral sex. They also can violate the law and have an illegal abortion. They could also have the baby and put it up for adoption. If they are really upset about the SCOTUS ruling the could have the child and leave it at The Supreme Court Building, located at One First Street, NE, in Washington, DC.
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.
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 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...
@@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.
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.
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 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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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
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 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.
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 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.
@Marcion 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.
@Marcion 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.
Women have a choice to get pregnant or not. Free birth control is available or keep their legs crossed. The child has a right to life not murder because mother screwed up
Random thoughts after listening to this: *1* 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. *2* Since Texas argued _"life begins at conception"_ how would that affect the hundreds of thousands of embryos in fertility clinics? Does the state possess the "right" to kidnap these embryo, demand woman of child bearing age act as surrogates, and then what, institutionalize them? Or is implantation in a test tube somehow less "a life" than one implanted in a womb? Do we outlaw fertility clinics for this reason and deny infertile couples the ability to have their own biological child? *3* If the _when life begins_ determination is relinquished to the state, does that not also confer to the state the attendant power to determine _"when life ends"?_ ie, the decision to remove life support on any individual will be a state imposed decision, as opposed to an individual decision between family and medical providers? I can envision insurance companies lobbying to pull the plug after a limited time to promote their own "financial" well being. *4* Woman's Health Argument. The argument can be made that "safe abortion" preserves lives. (both the life of the mother, and any future children she may go on to have.) Illegal abortion can result in: death of the mother, and the subsequent loss of all children she might have gone on to have at a future date; the death of the mother, leaving orphans of her existing children. ie, when abortion was banned in Romania, the result was reported to be over 100,000 unwanted children in orphanages, some spending their entire lives there and becoming developmentally disabled; more than 10,000 woman dying of illegal abortion, and hundreds of thousands more left infertile after illegal abortion. It's not clear that this is a "life affirming" policy to these ears or is taking the mothers health into consideration.
Don't overcomplicate it Most of the verbiage is a distraction from the central and core fact The first purpose of morality and the state is to protect and defend innocent life. If you remove that axiom, then 'morality' and the 'state' are vaccuous nonsensical notions An unborn child is 'a person' and has 'personhood', by any and every logical definition There is no legitimate debate about this, only fact deniers And to the extent that there is any iota of ambiguity- again retuning to the fundament of morality- if you do not err on the side of caution when it comes to defining human life, then the concept of 'morality' is meaningless A baby is a person An unborn baby is a person Thou shalt not kill people Or your 'civilizationhood' is a farce and you are nothing more than 'might makes right' savages Period. End of story. El fin. There is nothing further to discuss here. Baby murder is child sacrifice- the hallmark of savages Industrial scale baby murder? Think of the scale of the savagery of this hellscape in which we live, while pretending otherwise .. the euphemism that is 'abortion' was and is led by this tribe: 👹👹👹🇮🇱👹👹👹
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
Not being allowed to rob a bank fundamentally alters my life, but then again I don't have a right to take what's not mine do I? Beyond that, the lack of consensus as to when life begins should not matter. Any rational person, accepting that there is controversy over when the child is a separate and unique individual, would naturally conclude that it would be better to assert that date as the earliest date supposed by experts, thereby minimizing the possible infringement of the right to life, which by every moral measure is greater than that of privacy.
Why the law does not ask the male who caused the pregnancy to assume the responsabilidad to grow that child they ingender?that is the right thing to do if not they go to prison , indulging disires freely is what the bottom cause of all social problems for both
The Constitution put these considerations in the hands of each state. The Supreme Court is not who should be making these decisions. Alito's draft would return this issue to proper Constitutional authorities.
@@kalburgy2114 I don't know how you could argue that the protection of unborn life is anything but a necessary and proper use of federal government power. Are babies conceived in California any different or less deserving of their God given rights than those born in Texas? The argument that states should control this issue is asinine and self defeating. It's the same as arguing that the federal government shouldn't have passed the civil rights act of 60. The 14th amendment specifically grants the federal government powers to protect citizens' rights.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
Roe V. Wade was simply bad law, bad ruling, and wrong. And this does not hinge upon a person's view of abortion, but on LAW. This was pure and simple activism by the SCOTUS, and then the nation just accepted it. The nation treated a ruling as if it was LAW, and that the judges created a Right which was clearly not defined within the Constitution. Both of these things are not legal in our current system. But the irony of it all is that the same ones who defend the ruling and by extent how it effects thing are the same ones who scream that the 2nd Amendment is not what it is, and does not state what it clearly does state. The real issue now is not that RvW is being overturned, but why it has taken this long.
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.
@@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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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
🤔 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.
Murder is wrong and abortion is wrong as well. The government regulates citizens. A fetus is not a citizen nor a person. The realm of the unborn is God’s realm and women will be in charge of it. That’s just how it works.
They should not be punished at all. The unborn are not citizens and government cannot regulate non citizens or God’s domain. It should be socially stigmatized but not illegal.
A person can only be punished for killing a person or citizen. An unborn human child is neither a citizen nor a human. It’s irrelevant that she is a citizen and a human. Punishment as a citizen necessitates in this case killing ANOTHER citizen or person. That is not the case here.
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?
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…”?
@@michaelschaefer1904 Regardless, the point is that government is there to protect our rights and not establish their version or any version of morality.
'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.
@@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.
When I think of legislation from the bench, I think of Roe V Wade. Abortion should be left to state legislators. Abortion based on "My body, my choice" is the most selfish act. All in the journey of human life are created equal and endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. Among these rights are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A person using their unalienable rights to destroy another person's unalienable rights is the most wrong thing they can do.
Other way around. States don't get to violate rights held by the people. The most selfish act here is you trying to violently assault women and doing so with a perversion of faith. That level of barbarity that you're defending was used to rationalize the worst atrocities in American history. Never again.
@@Asemodeous, The "barbarity" you refer to is the Declaration Of Independence and Constitution of the USA. In life, all human beings are endowed with the same equal rights. The right of a mother is equal to, and the same, as their baby. True barbarity always begins with dehumanizing for the application of unequal rights among people.
@@reaality3860 The Constitution makes no authority to anything divine and the DOI is just war propaganda that has no binding legal power to it. Both of which you didn't know because you are a religious extremist that hates America.
Except it’s not alive, nor is it a separate entity. You’d be demanding that I violate my Jewish religious beliefs that REQUIRE women to terminate a pregnancy if the pregnancy is life threatening up until the baby crowns during LABOR. Why should a state be able to force me to violate my religious beliefs, beliefs that for fifty years had been almost entirely protected, because the state “feels like it.”
@@michaelgrant2099 A foetus is alive. Claiming a living organism growing inside you is not alive the most insanely idiotic argument in the entire abortion debate its complete nonsense. It is also a separate entity the entire reason this case came to court was because we now have examples of babies surviving as young as 14 weeks. Additionally if it is as you say a religious belief that requires abortion then you would be entitled to a religious exemption no matter the circumstances, that would absolutely be held up by every court in the country. There are plenty of laws which have religious exemptions this is nothing new. There is nothing in this opinion which says that 1st amendment rights don't exist, Roe v Wade is not a religious rights case.
For all the taxes we pay in the United States, we spend a gross amount subsidizing the defense industry and providing “humanitarian aid” to foreign nations. We have the worst infant & maternal death rates of any developed country. We do not offer the same social benefits to support children & families as the European Union. What will be proposal for caring for these children that will be born - foster care and orphanages or will the forced motherhood be supported by society? “From @LeilaCohan: If it was about babies, we'd have excellent and free universal maternal care. You wouldn't be charged a cent to give birth, no matter how complicated your delivery was. If it was about babies, we'd have months and months of parental leave, for everyone. If it was about babies, we'd have free lactation consultants, free diapers, free formula. If it was about babies, we'd have free and excellent childcare from newborns on. If it was about babies, we'd have universal preschool and pre-k and guaranteed after school placements.”
If you have children in US, that’s your choice. That’s the social contract. I wouldn’t have children if I needed free diapers or childcare, that would tell me I cannot afford to raise a child. It’s no one else’s responsibility to provide for my child, it’s not my responsibility to provide for anyone else’s. The beauty of diversity is it’s not about skin color but different ideas. If you want free everything, please make yourself fit enough to move to Europe and pay half your taxes to that kind of life. In the meantime, a lot of Americans value individualism and want to provide for our own children. People who can’t provide for their children, I have to wonder, why have them? Your child isn’t my responsibility. My child isn’t your responsibility. If you don’t like it, there are plenty of places to move to where society will make other peoples choices into bills that are your responsibility to pay for.
the us doesn't have the "worst infant & maternal death rates of any developed country". The only reason it appears that way is because in the us if there is a baby born with a life threatening condition and they die from it we count that as an infant mortality whereas Europe and other countries around the world don't. they simply pretend there never was a baby to begin with.
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.”
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.
@@NorthAvion "If you rely on being attached to another human being to live, shouldn't they have the liberty to detach themselves?" Not if they're the ones who put you both in that situation without your consent. And not if they can detach themselves from you without killing you, but choose the latter method anyway. "Is it anyone else's fault if you die of kidney failure? Should they be forced to attach themselves to you so you can live? If they choose not to does that mean they are killing you?" No, literally killing someone is what means you're killing them. Dismantling their body so that they die = killing them.
@@NorthAvion Even in the case of rape, someone else forced that child to be there. Killing them wouldn't be justified. But of course, even if I were okay with making an exception for rape victims, the "pro-choicers" wouldn't be satisfied with that so there's no point in bringing it up. The second answer is to say that if there's another way to get free of being attached to someone, other than killing them, you should do that instead. And obviously I'm not okay with killing an innocent human being for convenience no matter how it's done.
"the Bill of Rights has penumbras and emanations..." really? Intellectuals at work. This "issue" doesn't seem that complicated. You can make it more complicated by thinking and thinking. But the simplicity is leave it to the states; the feds should have nothing to do with it.
Wouldn't be as much of an issue if certain state governments didn't have such a ridiculous God complex as to restrict interstate travel and attempt to impose their state's laws on other states.
@@jmrtnez The killing of Babies should never ever happen, people forget that is how we all came to be. If the Baby in the womb is not human then what is it. If other states are doing their best to prevent this barbaric slaughter, then I am all for this. Would you be against other states if they were for killing Babies in the womb???
@@eddiewood7573 Fetuses are no more babies than apple seeds are apples. Up until the third trimester (which EVERY SINGLE ABORTION LAW PROHIBITS THE TERMINATION OF, with exceptions only made for fatality reasons, by the by), they're not fully-fledged humans. The deliberate attempt to paint this as being a matter of slaughtering babies in a nonsensical narrative created by political hacks to get the worthless people, who've lost the ability to be outwardly racist since society deemed it morally wrong post Civil Rights era, to the polls and voting for them. It's both false and known to be false. Pro-lifers aren't interested in the least in "protecting babies", they're interested in punishing women who have sex lives, and they're willing to hurt rape victims and women who miscarry in the process.
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!
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 .
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.
@@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.
@@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.
There IS LIFE in the womb. It is HUMAN life - not bacterial life. This life is growing and there is a small percentage that this human life (1/2 is female life). This isn’t 1832. There is no more slavery or ownership of people. The Human life is her or his own HUMAN LIFE. The mother can change the color of her hair, can wear different outfits, can drive different models of cars, they basically can do about almost anything they want to do with their body. The human life growing is not their body. I know this is an inconvenient truth but if you will be rational you will realize that you are making an error in logic by saying it’s the woman’s body it’s the woman’s choice.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
Every time i hear the supreme courts explanation of this decision in more detail i become more enraged at their reasoning. The amount of poor reasoning they use to justify this "right" is sickening. The constitution leaves the rights to manage the welfare of the citizens up to the states. Most states have laws where if you kill a woman and she turns out to be pregnant you can be charged with taking two lives. If we're to go with the supreme court's reasoning here would that not mean these laws are unconstitutional as they haven't actually ended a second life?
@@sleezyclips8068 I've avoided nothing a right of any woman to make a moral judgement is no one else's responsibility, you don't like it thats fine because its not your body
@@firebyrd437 ahh, so you simply misunderstood. The OP asked how the court can refuse to recognize a fetus as a life but can charge someone with murder for killing a fetus. I tried to shorten it a bit for you as comprehending the OP seems to be difficult for you.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Talk about have cake and eat too!! Women want to charge you for assault twice if you hurt them during pregnancy, because they want it. But, if unwanted can terminate same pregnancy!? So, basically, the want or unwant determines if fetus is person!? Women also want, to have all choices to keep or not. Give fathers no choice to keep or not but bind father for life if she chooses to keep when he doesn't. Cake and eat too, by definition. Solution is simple in nature and easy to see! The solution provides more choice! TO ALL involved. Women can do whatever they want! Just like in nature, they are responsible for own actions and can decide. IF WOMEN, want a man to be involved they can decide this yes or no! THEN, men are provided choice to partake or not. CHOICES! REAL choices! YOU can't bind a man to your choices, and give that man no choices. THE argument keep it in your pants applies to all parties and all can abstain, use birth control. Adoption should be mother's choice, first choice going to father! SIMPLE! Men, can you agree to this? Compromise! Women, can you agree to this? Compromise FULL OF CHOICES!!? Just curious, because the only thing you don't get to chose is child support from an unwilling dad! Other than this, you have all the choices!
5:34 all the zones of protection...does it say the people cannot be armed? Does it say the people cannot own cannons? An AR or AK whatever? It says nothing restricting a firearm of any kind. But the same folks who will claim an absolute right out of silence to support abortion will say the 2A is silent on weapons therefore there is no right to a modern forearm such as AR15. And they claim the same for speech. Like VP Candidate Walz said in the debate, you can't yell "fire," which is a misunstrading of the SCOTUS decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. Like Roe, Schenk was overturned by a later Court.
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....
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.
Yeah, it's a moronic opinion, made from whole cloth... These people started with the pre-determined outcome they wanted and twisted the law into pretzels to arrive there. Roe should have been overturned decades ago, if the SCOTUS was honest.
Are you sure that you care about life? Look around you. There are people homeless- while others are rolling like pigs in infinite wealth and greed. Show care for the living by taking action for the people alive on earth suffering today. Help make homeless people homes and give Medicare for ALL.
@@lesliewheeler7071 I care more for the lives of unborn innocent children than I do the well being of people who chose to become addicted to drugs and live on the streets. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, it makes me pragmatic. The permanently homeless have already made the decision to be useless to society, the unborn meanwhile constitute our collective future as a society.
WRONG. There is NO constitutional right for a fetus. Natural rights exist as a social contract between human beings in a LEGAL jurisdiction. What makes the LAW legal in a jurisdiction is either FORCE of the state OR consent of the governed. A fetus cannot consent. Neither you nor the state has any natural right to legal standing UNTIL the child is out of the woman's womb and in the world. Mind your own business.
@@canteluna Your gibberish makes no sense. There is no constitutional right to murder a fetus. The state can indeed FORCE an amoral, depraved woman such as yourself to not murder her unborn child.
If this was just about the rights of women it would be very different. But young women are coming out of the education institutions with no respect or responsibility for the life they may co-create through sleeping with a man. And what is being done, what experiments are being done, with these aborted babies?
Carrying a baby is not punishment, it is a natural consequence of sex. I'm not saying there aren't some circumstances that abortions should be performed, but it is ridiculous to conflate those extreme situations with the reality that is the majority of abortions: performed for convenience after negligence on the part of the parents. The state already regulates all aspects of medical care and many other aspects of daily life, there is no reason to assume that the state would not also have a compelling interest in regulating the use of abortions as a matter of public demographic health.
@@marshallscot It is a natural consequence of sex, but not one that is shared equally amongst both parties who chose to partake in sex. It can't be denied that the physical and emotional effects of getting pregnant and having a baby weigh much more heavily on one party from this interaction (women). From pregnancy, to labor and delivery, carrying and delivering a baby is an extreme event in a woman's life, I think the terms "convenience" and "negligence" are used a bit flippantly here. And it seems we already agree there are circumstances where abortions absolutely should be allowed, but the key will be determining under what circumstances, and I think importantly, when in a pregnancy a woman has the right to end said pregnancy. I personally feel the court got it right in PP v Casey that the viability of the fetus able to survive outside of the woman's womb is a perfectly reasonable cut-off point for """convenience""" abortions. And I feel there should always be medical exceptions allowed for the safety of the mother and non-viable pregnancies, or rape/incest survivors.
A fetus is the result of choices made. All choices have consequences. That BABY is a human being. That fetus will not grow into anything but a human. Roe v. Wade was ruled on 'the right to privacy' which does not give the right to KILL a fetus. NO ONE IS TAKING ANYONE'S CHOICE AWAY, just requiring them to live with the consequence of their choice.
How do you kill something that isn’t living? If we are on life support like ventilation or we can only survive if someone is doing CPR on us… does that mean that if someone stops giving us life support they are guilty of murder?
Abortion doesn’t kill a fetus. It makes it so it can’t use the woman as life support. A woman is not a life support machine or an incubator. She’s a full human being who gets to decide who what when where and how someone can use her body.
Your reasoning implies that a baby that has been born is not alive, for the reason that it cannot survive unless given live support, i.e. be fed. That fetus did not put itself into the woman womb, she and her partner did. I can't believe anyone can so ignorant of biology, as a say that a fetus is not alive, it is growing from the point that the egg is fertilized. Growth equals live. I pray your eyes become open to the truth.
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.
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.
This was super informative, I relistened multiple times to fully understand. Well spoken.
Yes good intellectual , have to listen a bit carefully
Some women would rather die than give birth
Miners - difficult one! BUT MINORS SHD NOT BE FORCED TO GIVE BIRTH TO SATISFY THE NEEDS/DESIRES OF PARENTS!!!! Catholics can force Minor to give birth whilst STIGMATISING both mother & baby FOR LIFE!!!!!!!! Therefore minors should have right of privacy btn Dr & patient
Former EMBRYO here...
Glad to be alive.🙂
*Embryo
@@adrianaacevedo6732 oh thank you😅
Great presentation. America needs more of these calm, reasoned discussions.
It’s not a discussion
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.
@@rjkmusicmedia 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.
@@rjkmusicmedia 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.
At what point do you hold the woman accountable for choosing to have sex ? Clearly no one cares about the man's situation and his capabilities of raising a child if the mother chooses to keep the child. This only promotes promiscuity and COMPLETELY unfair inequalities between men and women.
There actually are groups who argue this point and have put forward bills to allow the mother who has an abortion to be prosecuted. End Abortion Now is one such organization. But big Pro Life has had the bills killed in multiple states. Louisiana, Alabama, for example. Because Big Pro Life do not want to ever have the mother take responsibility even though she is the person taking the baby to be killed. It's not that baby killers are roaming streets looking for abortable people. But the mothers are sacrificing their own children.
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.
Roe v Wade was wrong because it was allowed based on privacy rights. If ending the life of a fetus is OK because it was decided by a woman and her doctor, is it ok for a woman and her doctor to decide to end the life of a two day old baby because os birth defects? Or end the life of an abusive husband?
Woman have options to not become pregnant in the first place. Abstinence, condoms, birth control pills, IUD's and oral sex. They also can violate the law and have an illegal abortion. They could also have the baby and put it up for adoption. If they are really upset about the SCOTUS ruling the could have the child and leave it at The Supreme Court Building, located at One First Street, NE, in Washington, DC.
Thank you for explaining this ruling. Logical understanding of this issue is so necessary right now.
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.
Nothing gives them that right. It doesn’t exist.
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 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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Outstanding speech& so understand ale!!thank you ,Hillsdale!!!!
You need life before you can have liberty. That baby has the right to life liberty and pursue it's happiness.
Does anyone know of any articles of the same vein as this video? Looking to delve deeper
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.
@Marcion 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.
@Marcion 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.
Women have a choice to get pregnant or not. Free birth control is available or keep their legs crossed. The child has a right to life not murder because mother screwed up
Random thoughts after listening to this:
*1* 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.
*2* Since Texas argued _"life begins at conception"_ how would that affect the hundreds of thousands of embryos in fertility clinics? Does the state possess the "right" to kidnap these embryo, demand woman of child bearing age act as surrogates, and then what, institutionalize them? Or is implantation in a test tube somehow less "a life" than one implanted in a womb? Do we outlaw fertility clinics for this reason and deny infertile couples the ability to have their own biological child?
*3* If the _when life begins_ determination is relinquished to the state, does that not also confer to the state the attendant power to determine _"when life ends"?_ ie, the decision to remove life support on any individual will be a state imposed decision, as opposed to an individual decision between family and medical providers? I can envision insurance companies lobbying to pull the plug after a limited time to promote their own "financial" well being.
*4* Woman's Health Argument. The argument can be made that "safe abortion" preserves lives. (both the life of the mother, and any future children she may go on to have.) Illegal abortion can result in: death of the mother, and the subsequent loss of all children she might have gone on to have at a future date; the death of the mother, leaving orphans of her existing children. ie, when abortion was banned in Romania, the result was reported to be over 100,000 unwanted children in orphanages, some spending their entire lives there and becoming developmentally disabled; more than 10,000 woman dying of illegal abortion, and hundreds of thousands more left infertile after illegal abortion. It's not clear that this is a "life affirming" policy to these ears or is taking the mothers health into consideration.
Don't overcomplicate it
Most of the verbiage is a distraction from the central and core fact
The first purpose of morality and the state is to protect and defend innocent life.
If you remove that axiom, then 'morality' and the 'state' are vaccuous nonsensical notions
An unborn child is 'a person' and has 'personhood', by any and every logical definition
There is no legitimate debate about this, only fact deniers
And to the extent that there is any iota of ambiguity- again retuning to the fundament of morality- if you do not err on the side of caution when it comes to defining human life, then the concept of 'morality' is meaningless
A baby is a person
An unborn baby is a person
Thou shalt not kill people
Or your 'civilizationhood' is a farce and you are nothing more than 'might makes right' savages
Period. End of story. El fin.
There is nothing further to discuss here.
Baby murder is child sacrifice- the hallmark of savages
Industrial scale baby murder?
Think of the scale of the savagery of this hellscape in which we live, while pretending otherwise ..
the euphemism that is 'abortion' was and is led by this tribe:
👹👹👹🇮🇱👹👹👹
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.
That was an outstanding explanation
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.
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.
Thank you Dr. Adam Carrington. It helped me understand why this issue is so controversial.
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.
Not being allowed to rob a bank fundamentally alters my life, but then again I don't have a right to take what's not mine do I? Beyond that, the lack of consensus as to when life begins should not matter. Any rational person, accepting that there is controversy over when the child is a separate and unique individual, would naturally conclude that it would be better to assert that date as the earliest date supposed by experts, thereby minimizing the possible infringement of the right to life, which by every moral measure is greater than that of privacy.
Why the law does not ask the male who caused the pregnancy to assume the responsabilidad to grow that child they ingender?that is the right thing to do if not they go to prison , indulging disires freely is what the bottom cause of all social problems for both
@@noellebazzi5618 you just described child support
"... Any rational person..." -- Well, there ya go. We're not dealing with rational people, and by now most of us know it.
The Constitution put these considerations in the hands of each state. The Supreme Court is not who should be making these decisions. Alito's draft would return this issue to proper Constitutional authorities.
@@kalburgy2114 I don't know how you could argue that the protection of unborn life is anything but a necessary and proper use of federal government power. Are babies conceived in California any different or less deserving of their God given rights than those born in Texas? The argument that states should control this issue is asinine and self defeating. It's the same as arguing that the federal government shouldn't have passed the civil rights act of 60. The 14th amendment specifically grants the federal government powers to protect citizens' rights.
We need an update on this!
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
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!
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.
Roe V. Wade was simply bad law, bad ruling, and wrong. And this does not hinge upon a person's view of abortion, but on LAW. This was pure and simple activism by the SCOTUS, and then the nation just accepted it. The nation treated a ruling as if it was LAW, and that the judges created a Right which was clearly not defined within the Constitution. Both of these things are not legal in our current system. But the irony of it all is that the same ones who defend the ruling and by extent how it effects thing are the same ones who scream that the 2nd Amendment is not what it is, and does not state what it clearly does state.
The real issue now is not that RvW is being overturned, but why it has taken this long.
Thank you Hillsdale college, this has been very helpful.
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.
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.
Excellent explanation!
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.
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).
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.
Wonderful, Thank You
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
What about Blackstone, applied by the authors of founding documents
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
🤔 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.
All murder laws apply to infants in the womb. Pretty simple. Every state already has laws on this.
So how should women who have abortions be punished?
Murder is wrong and abortion is wrong as well. The government regulates citizens. A fetus is not a citizen nor a person. The realm of the unborn is God’s realm and women will be in charge of it. That’s just how it works.
@@patrickmcmanus1360 The woman is a citizen and a person. How should she be punished?
They should not be punished at all. The unborn are not citizens and government cannot regulate non citizens or God’s domain. It should be socially stigmatized but not illegal.
A person can only be punished for killing a person or citizen. An unborn human child is neither a citizen nor a human. It’s irrelevant that she is a citizen and a human. Punishment as a citizen necessitates in this case killing ANOTHER citizen or person. That is not the case here.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
Top presentation. 🌹
Very educational and informative...relevant and timely. Thank you!
You dropped this, King 👑
When I think of legislation from the bench, I think of Roe V Wade. Abortion should be left to state legislators. Abortion based on "My body, my choice" is the most selfish act. All in the journey of human life are created equal and endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. Among these rights are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A person using their unalienable rights to destroy another person's unalienable rights is the most wrong thing they can do.
Other way around. States don't get to violate rights held by the people.
The most selfish act here is you trying to violently assault women and doing so with a perversion of faith. That level of barbarity that you're defending was used to rationalize the worst atrocities in American history. Never again.
@@Asemodeous, The "barbarity" you refer to is the Declaration Of Independence and Constitution of the USA. In life, all human beings are endowed with the same equal rights. The right of a mother is equal to, and the same, as their baby. True barbarity always begins with dehumanizing for the application of unequal rights among people.
@@reaality3860 The Constitution makes no authority to anything divine and the DOI is just war propaganda that has no binding legal power to it.
Both of which you didn't know because you are a religious extremist that hates America.
Except it’s not alive, nor is it a separate entity. You’d be demanding that I violate my Jewish religious beliefs that REQUIRE women to terminate a pregnancy if the pregnancy is life threatening up until the baby crowns during LABOR. Why should a state be able to force me to violate my religious beliefs, beliefs that for fifty years had been almost entirely protected, because the state “feels like it.”
@@michaelgrant2099 A foetus is alive. Claiming a living organism growing inside you is not alive the most insanely idiotic argument in the entire abortion debate its complete nonsense. It is also a separate entity the entire reason this case came to court was because we now have examples of babies surviving as young as 14 weeks.
Additionally if it is as you say a religious belief that requires abortion then you would be entitled to a religious exemption no matter the circumstances, that would absolutely be held up by every court in the country. There are plenty of laws which have religious exemptions this is nothing new. There is nothing in this opinion which says that 1st amendment rights don't exist, Roe v Wade is not a religious rights case.
So if I commit a crime in the PRIVACY of my home is it ok?!
For all the taxes we pay in the United States, we spend a gross amount subsidizing the defense industry and providing “humanitarian aid” to foreign nations. We have the worst infant & maternal death rates of any developed country. We do not offer the same social benefits to support children & families as the European Union. What will be proposal for caring for these children that will be born - foster care and orphanages or will the forced motherhood be supported by society?
“From @LeilaCohan:
If it was about babies, we'd have
excellent and free universal maternal
care. You wouldn't be charged a cent to
give birth, no matter how complicated
your delivery was. If it was about babies,
we'd have months and months of
parental leave, for everyone.
If it was about babies, we'd have free
lactation consultants, free diapers, free
formula. If it was about babies, we'd have
free and excellent childcare from
newborns on. If it was about babies, we'd
have universal preschool and pre-k and
guaranteed after school placements.”
If you have children in US, that’s your choice. That’s the social contract. I wouldn’t have children if I needed free diapers or childcare, that would tell me I cannot afford to raise a child. It’s no one else’s responsibility to provide for my child, it’s not my responsibility to provide for anyone else’s. The beauty of diversity is it’s not about skin color but different ideas. If you want free everything, please make yourself fit enough to move to Europe and pay half your taxes to that kind of life. In the meantime, a lot of Americans value individualism and want to provide for our own children. People who can’t provide for their children, I have to wonder, why have them? Your child isn’t my responsibility. My child isn’t your responsibility. If you don’t like it, there are plenty of places to move to where society will make other peoples choices into bills that are your responsibility to pay for.
@M Si Bravo! My ancestors fled Europe. I wish these people who want to turn us into Europe would understand that!
@@msi8311 wow, you're self righteous. May God keep you from ever having to eat your words!
Beautifully said! 🙏🏾 Thank you.
the us doesn't have the "worst infant & maternal death rates of any developed country". The only reason it appears that way is because in the us if there is a baby born with a life threatening condition and they die from it we count that as an infant mortality whereas Europe and other countries around the world don't. they simply pretend there never was a baby to begin with.
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.
Even if we *only* consider privacy and liberty, you're denying a human being both when you literally kill them.
Just matters whose rights you care for more
@@fredv7349 Personally, I think not killing someone is more important than not invading their privacy.
@@NorthAvion "If you rely on being attached to another human being to live, shouldn't they have the liberty to detach themselves?"
Not if they're the ones who put you both in that situation without your consent. And not if they can detach themselves from you without killing you, but choose the latter method anyway.
"Is it anyone else's fault if you die of kidney failure? Should they be forced to attach themselves to you so you can live? If they choose not to does that mean they are killing you?"
No, literally killing someone is what means you're killing them. Dismantling their body so that they die = killing them.
@@Vic2point0 that's fine
@@NorthAvion Even in the case of rape, someone else forced that child to be there. Killing them wouldn't be justified. But of course, even if I were okay with making an exception for rape victims, the "pro-choicers" wouldn't be satisfied with that so there's no point in bringing it up.
The second answer is to say that if there's another way to get free of being attached to someone, other than killing them, you should do that instead.
And obviously I'm not okay with killing an innocent human being for convenience no matter how it's done.
Well done, thank you.
"the Bill of Rights has penumbras and emanations..." really? Intellectuals at work. This "issue" doesn't seem that complicated. You can make it more complicated by thinking and thinking. But the simplicity is leave it to the states; the feds should have nothing to do with it.
The issue is not complicated, Babies should never be slaughtered in the most horrific, barbaric ways, they are human being!!!
Wouldn't be as much of an issue if certain state governments didn't have such a ridiculous God complex as to restrict interstate travel and attempt to impose their state's laws on other states.
@@jmrtnez The killing of Babies should never ever happen, people forget that is how we all came to be. If the Baby in the womb is not human then what is it. If other states are doing their best to prevent this barbaric slaughter, then I am all for this. Would you be against other states if they were for killing Babies in the womb???
@@eddiewood7573 Fetuses are no more babies than apple seeds are apples. Up until the third trimester (which EVERY SINGLE ABORTION LAW PROHIBITS THE TERMINATION OF, with exceptions only made for fatality reasons, by the by), they're not fully-fledged humans.
The deliberate attempt to paint this as being a matter of slaughtering babies in a nonsensical narrative created by political hacks to get the worthless people, who've lost the ability to be outwardly racist since society deemed it morally wrong post Civil Rights era, to the polls and voting for them. It's both false and known to be false. Pro-lifers aren't interested in the least in "protecting babies", they're interested in punishing women who have sex lives, and they're willing to hurt rape victims and women who miscarry in the process.
Wrong. State should have nothing to do with it except in regulating who is allowed to perform abortions.
Helpful video, thanks.
"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.
😂😂
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!
The US Constitution is not non-binary/gender fluid. Changing its meaning based on its feelings that day.
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 .
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?
Isn’t imprisonment the removal of autonomy technically?
Save the unborn from murder.
What about post natal abortion?
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.
There IS LIFE in the womb. It is HUMAN life - not bacterial life. This life is growing and there is a small percentage that this human life (1/2 is female life). This isn’t 1832. There is no more slavery or ownership of people. The Human life is her or his own HUMAN LIFE. The mother can change the color of her hair, can wear different outfits, can drive different models of cars, they basically can do about almost anything they want to do with their body.
The human life growing is not their body.
I know this is an inconvenient truth but if you will be rational you will realize that you are making an error in logic by saying it’s the woman’s body it’s the woman’s choice.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
There is no privacy from the father of the child. "A separate life would negate privacy claims"
Men are responsible for pregnancy. The child is his also.
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.
Murder is not a right.
Every time i hear the supreme courts explanation of this decision in more detail i become more enraged at their reasoning. The amount of poor reasoning they use to justify this "right" is sickening. The constitution leaves the rights to manage the welfare of the citizens up to the states. Most states have laws where if you kill a woman and she turns out to be pregnant you can be charged with taking two lives. If we're to go with the supreme court's reasoning here would that not mean these laws are unconstitutional as they haven't actually ended a second life?
Nonsense its every woman's right to do as she thinks fit for her own welfare not some man's or an outdated constitution
@@firebyrd437 you seem to have either avoided or misunderstood the question completely.
@@firebyrd437 That welfare cant cross into killing a child.
@@sleezyclips8068 I've avoided nothing a right of any woman to make a moral judgement is no one else's responsibility, you don't like it thats fine because its not your body
@@firebyrd437 ahh, so you simply misunderstood. The OP asked how the court can refuse to recognize a fetus as a life but can charge someone with murder for killing a fetus. I tried to shorten it a bit for you as comprehending the OP seems to be difficult for you.
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.
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.
What ever gun I want to own is a right but yet they regulate it. That’s unconditional for a fact. Abortion is not.
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).
Talk about have cake and eat too!! Women want to charge you for assault twice if you hurt them during pregnancy, because they want it. But, if unwanted can terminate same pregnancy!? So, basically, the want or unwant determines if fetus is person!?
Women also want, to have all choices to keep or not. Give fathers no choice to keep or not but bind father for life if she chooses to keep when he doesn't. Cake and eat too, by definition.
Solution is simple in nature and easy to see! The solution provides more choice! TO ALL involved.
Women can do whatever they want! Just like in nature, they are responsible for own actions and can decide. IF WOMEN, want a man to be involved they can decide this yes or no! THEN, men are provided choice to partake or not. CHOICES! REAL choices!
YOU can't bind a man to your choices, and give that man no choices. THE argument keep it in your pants applies to all parties and all can abstain, use birth control. Adoption should be mother's choice, first choice going to father! SIMPLE!
Men, can you agree to this? Compromise!
Women, can you agree to this? Compromise FULL OF CHOICES!!?
Just curious, because the only thing you don't get to chose is child support from an unwilling dad! Other than this, you have all the choices!
The argument for abortion based on privacy is about as ridiculous as claiming you have a right to shoot drugs Because you have a right to privacy.
5:34 all the zones of protection...does it say the people cannot be armed? Does it say the people cannot own cannons? An AR or AK whatever? It says nothing restricting a firearm of any kind. But the same folks who will claim an absolute right out of silence to support abortion will say the 2A is silent on weapons therefore there is no right to a modern forearm such as AR15. And they claim the same for speech. Like VP Candidate Walz said in the debate, you can't yell "fire," which is a misunstrading of the SCOTUS decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. Like Roe, Schenk was overturned by a later Court.
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.
Very cool thanks bro
For pro-lifers it's about the life of a human being AND respect for the rule of law and the US Constitution. Roe showed complete disregard for both.
Yeah, it's a moronic opinion, made from whole cloth... These people started with the pre-determined outcome they wanted and twisted the law into pretzels to arrive there. Roe should have been overturned decades ago, if the SCOTUS was honest.
Are you sure that you care about life? Look around you. There are people homeless- while others are rolling like pigs in infinite wealth and greed.
Show care for the living by taking action for the people alive on earth suffering today.
Help make homeless people homes and give Medicare for ALL.
@@lesliewheeler7071 I care more for the lives of unborn innocent children than I do the well being of people who chose to become addicted to drugs and live on the streets. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, it makes me pragmatic. The permanently homeless have already made the decision to be useless to society, the unborn meanwhile constitute our collective future as a society.
WRONG. There is NO constitutional right for a fetus. Natural rights exist as a social contract between human beings in a LEGAL jurisdiction. What makes the LAW legal in a jurisdiction is either FORCE of the state OR consent of the governed. A fetus cannot consent. Neither you nor the state has any natural right to legal standing UNTIL the child is out of the woman's womb and in the world. Mind your own business.
@@canteluna Your gibberish makes no sense. There is no constitutional right to murder a fetus. The state can indeed FORCE an amoral, depraved woman such as yourself to not murder her unborn child.
If this was just about the rights of women it would be very different. But young women are coming out of the education institutions with no respect or responsibility for the life they may co-create through sleeping with a man. And what is being done, what experiments are being done, with these aborted babies?
So are you arguing a baby is a suitable punishment for acting irresponsibly? If so that really seems to disregard the life of the baby.
Carrying a baby is not punishment, it is a natural consequence of sex. I'm not saying there aren't some circumstances that abortions should be performed, but it is ridiculous to conflate those extreme situations with the reality that is the majority of abortions: performed for convenience after negligence on the part of the parents. The state already regulates all aspects of medical care and many other aspects of daily life, there is no reason to assume that the state would not also have a compelling interest in regulating the use of abortions as a matter of public demographic health.
@@marshallscot It is a natural consequence of sex, but not one that is shared equally amongst both parties who chose to partake in sex. It can't be denied that the physical and emotional effects of getting pregnant and having a baby weigh much more heavily on one party from this interaction (women). From pregnancy, to labor and delivery, carrying and delivering a baby is an extreme event in a woman's life, I think the terms "convenience" and "negligence" are used a bit flippantly here. And it seems we already agree there are circumstances where abortions absolutely should be allowed, but the key will be determining under what circumstances, and I think importantly, when in a pregnancy a woman has the right to end said pregnancy. I personally feel the court got it right in PP v Casey that the viability of the fetus able to survive outside of the woman's womb is a perfectly reasonable cut-off point for """convenience""" abortions. And I feel there should always be medical exceptions allowed for the safety of the mother and non-viable pregnancies, or rape/incest survivors.
A fetus is the result of choices made. All choices have consequences. That BABY is a human being. That fetus will not grow into anything but a human. Roe v. Wade was ruled on 'the right to privacy' which does not give the right to KILL a fetus. NO ONE IS TAKING ANYONE'S CHOICE AWAY, just requiring them to live with the consequence of their choice.
How do you kill something that isn’t living? If we are on life support like ventilation or we can only survive if someone is doing CPR on us… does that mean that if someone stops giving us life support they are guilty of murder?
Abortion doesn’t kill a fetus. It makes it so it can’t use the woman as life support. A woman is not a life support machine or an incubator. She’s a full human being who gets to decide who what when where and how someone can use her body.
Your reasoning implies that a baby that has been born is not alive, for the reason that it cannot survive unless given live support, i.e. be fed. That fetus did not put itself into the woman womb, she and her partner did. I can't believe anyone can so ignorant of biology, as a say that a fetus is not alive, it is growing from the point that the egg is fertilized. Growth equals live. I pray your eyes become open to the truth.
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.