Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

That sounds perfect with my idea of a woman's sovereignty over her body--a sovereignty that preempts the state's sovereignty over her as a citizen. (If this is difficult to imagine, think of the Indian reservation structure of a separate sovereignty under the same governing organization as the rest of the country for a legal precedent.)

On the rights level, the morality of abortion is a far more dicey proposition as all these discussions prove.

Michael

And btw, I was interested to learn that 'the privacy factor' (of a pregnant woman) was instrumental in Roe v. Wade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, anthony said:

But by comparison, how much can a clearly, physically abusive mother hold sovereignty over her children?

Tony,

Why would an abusive mother abuse her own belly?

:) 

Are you following my proposal?

It goes like this. Until the baby comes out of the mother, said mother has sovereignty over it, including anything dealing with its right to life. After the baby comes out, the state kicks in as protector of its right to life.

The legal reason is not rights, but sovereignty.

If she is an abusive mother to born children, she will have to deal with the state's protection of their rights. (That falls within state sovereignty.) If she is abusive to her own body and what's in it, even if it's a well-formed fetus or whatever, well, that's her sovereign domain and she can do whatever she wishes.

That's my proposal.

This does not make all her actions good when she is exercising her sovereignty. But doing something vile as a sovereign causes no legal jeopardy from the other sovereign (meaning the state).

I believe the legal structure to cement something like this already exists for legislation to be passed without amending the constitution. (Think an Indian reservation being a separate sovereign.)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, anthony said:

And btw, I was interested to learn that 'the privacy factor' (of a pregnant woman) was instrumental in Roe v. Wade.

Tony,

Roe vs. Wade is a legal abomination where the Supreme Court legislated from the bench.

A right to privacy is not enumerated in the Constitution.

That's why the pro-abortion folks are constantly afraid it will be overturned by the Supreme Court itself if too many conservative Justices get appointed..

Oddly enough, with my sovereignty idea, privacy would exist de facto for the mother, as in, what the mother does with her body and whatever is in it is none of the government's damn business. Just like what Indians do on their reservation is none of the federal government's damn business.

Apropos, just to be clear, I dislike abortion to the point of loathing it. But if something is not my call, it's not my call. I can try to persuade, though, as my own freedom of speech is my call. Legally, I like my formulation since it untangles so many knots and sets clear boundaries on solid legal foundations.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A right does not need to be enumerated. The right to privacy meant a right to get an abortion, but the Court didn't want to say that.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

A right does not need to be enumerated.

Brant,

Of course it has to if it is going to be the grounds for expanding federal power over state power.

The Supreme Court needed to rule that it had no jurisdiction in abortion.

Instead, Roe v. Wade went the route of declaring prenatal human life into trimesters, then in later decisions into "viability."

In other words, prenatal life was not deserving of the protection of individual rights, except it was partially if we slice and dice up what a human being was according to a timeline. And, of course, a woman's right to privacy trumped the right to life of the unborn.

This is reminiscent of the three-fifths compromise in the constitution where a slave was three-fifths of a man, then the Dread Scott decision that declared descendants of Africa were not citizens of the US.

I am not all that familiar with the details of Supreme Court decisions (and intend to remedy this), but I do know how to define human life without imposing artificial constructs. (I use biology as my standard since I cannot imagine the existence of biology-free human beings. :) )

Our ancestors settled the legal gobbledygook about slaves and descendants of Africa with a war, then an amendment to the constitution. We don't need a war to legally situate the rights of the unborn (although we may get one), but legislation voted on by Congress will eventually have to happen. Otherwise, I bet the right to privacy that the Supreme Court dreamed up to expand federal power will later get redefined by other Justices. Why? Because they can. What the Supreme Court giveth the Supreme Court may also taketh away.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Saying "biology is fundamental" is saying "man qua man" isn't?

Brant,

Rand defined man as a "rational animal," then went about developing her philosophy by chopping off the animal part to make something fit when it didn't fit (tabula rasa, reason in man's only tool of survival, etc.).

So, to answer your question, saying "biology is fundamental" is saying "man qua man" is true in all cases in Objectivism except when it isn't.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I wasn't trying to invoke Objectivism. I never do except when I say I am. My only point was a human being includes biology.

--Brant

we may be over-referencing Rand

my Objectivism expertise comes from not being an expert on Objectivism as classically and/or officially rendered (see Peikoff)

so man qua man is just as fundamental as biology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

Of course it has to if it is going to be the grounds for expanding federal power over state power.

The Supreme Court needed to rule that it had no jurisdiction in abortion.

Instead, Roe v. Wade went the route of declaring prenatal human life into trimesters, then in later decisions into "viability."

In other words, prenatal life was not deserving of the protection of individual rights, except it was partially if we slice and dice up what a human being was according to a timeline. And, of course, a woman's right to privacy trumped the right to life of the unborn.

This is reminiscent of the three-fifths compromise in the constitution where a slave was three-fifths of a man, then the Dread Scott decision that declared descendants of Africa were not citizens of the US.

I am not all that familiar with the details of Supreme Court decisions (and intend to remedy this), but I do know how to define human life without imposing artificial constructs. (I use biology as my standard since I cannot imagine the existence of biology-free human beings. :) )

Our ancestors settled the legal gobbledygook about slaves and descendants of Africa with a war, then an amendment to the constitution. We don't need a war to legally situate the rights of the unborn (although we may get one), but legislation voted on by Congress will eventually have to happen. Otherwise, I bet the right to privacy that the Supreme Court dreamed up to expand federal power will later get redefined by other Justices. Why? Because they can. What the Supreme Court giveth the Supreme Court may also taketh away.

Michael

Still, a right need not be enumerated. That was settled by the Civil War. 

The expansion of Federal over State power in this context is the SCOTUS telling the States and sundry they cannot violate a human right.

Thus, is there a right for a woman to have an abortion? You answered yes only you called it sovereignty. You could have called it privacy except it's mealy mouthed.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned years before a Philadelphia doctor was censored, lost his license and may have done jail time for aborting and or delivering babies until their heads were visible and then he killed them with a needle before the baby was fully revealed. I think several nurses turned the bastard in.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Thus, is there a right for a woman to have an abortion? You answered yes only you called it sovereignty. You could have called it privacy except it's mealy mouthed.

Brant,

Not at all. It's a legal construction.

It's a limitation on the boundaries of the state. It has nothing to do with the right to kill, unless you consider the state's practice of executing prisoners to death a right to kill by the state.

Does the state have a right to kill? How does that square with Objectivism and the concept of rights under Objectivism?

I do not confuse the law with morality.

The state rules, which ultimately means it can execute those under its rule. But, to me, this is by force, not by right. Ditto for the mother. She kills her unborn by force, not by right. I prefer only one killer ruler if I ever have anything to say about how the law is fashioned. One ruler wielding force to kill those under its rule at a time is plenty for me.

Also, when sovereigns conflict, diplomacy is called for. And when diplomacy breaks down, there is war.

To me, that is an excellent check and balance. I would love to see the US government try to wage war against a woman and how that would work out with the rest of the citizens.

I am tempted to say I think couching killing in the language of individual rights mealy-mouthed, but that would be smart-assed, not substantive. I prefer not to get personal on this. The topic is too important.

It's funny how people get personal about this, ain't it?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Still, a right need not be enumerated. That was settled by the Civil War. 

Brant,

From my read, that was settled way earlier by the Ninth Amendment.

Quote

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue about enumerating a right in the constitution as grounds for expanding the federal government's power over the states is in the Tenth Amendment.

Quote

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I saw nothing in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to impose a right to privacy of individuals structure over state governments, nor assume right to privacy of individuals as the exclusive domain of the federal government. Where did the Constitution prohibit state governments from being the ruling power over protecting a right to privacy?

I'm not a lawyer, but I do read and speak English.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

My issue about enumerating a right in the constitution as grounds for expanding the federal government's power over the states is in the Tenth Amendment.

I saw nothing in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to impose a right to privacy of individuals structure over state governments, nor assume right to privacy of individuals as the exclusive domain of the federal government. Where did the Constitution prohibit state governments from being the ruling power over protecting a right to privacy?

I'm not a lawyer, but I do read and speak English.

Michael

The Bill of Rights was a limitation on federal not state power. After the Civil War the "Civil War Amendments" changed that.

Irving Brant, "The Bill of Rights, It's Origin and Meaning", 1965, pp 3,4

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My grandfather was a personal friend of DL Chambers who published most of his books likely making little money for Bobbs Merrill, including his one and really not so good but interesting novel, "Friendly Cove." This is the guy who told A. Ogden No for "The Fountainhead."

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

Every time you mention your grandfather, I get an itch to read his bio of Madison.

What is the best of his volumes to get started?

btw - Lookee what I found:

Irving Newton Brant

You probably know this, but I bet most OL readers don't.

:) 

Michael

Read the condensed volume. In hardback. The six are hard to get and expensive.

"The Fourth President: A Life of James Madison"

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this