Why conservatives should support Roe v. Wade

[corbe]

Why conservatives should support Roe v. Wade

By Kim Wehle, opinion contributor — 07/08/18 01:30 PM EDT 

Amongst the endless list of hopelessly polarizing issues that divide the country today, abortion is at the very top. The topic has reached a new fever pitch with Supreme Court Justice Kennedy’s impending retirement. He was the so-called “swing” vote on the court when it comes to reproductive rights, having sided with progressives in all but two of the many cases on that subject since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Abortion under the Constitution is regarded as so black-and-white that finding common ground seems all but impossible.

When truth be told, however, one can’t help but wonder why intellectually honest conservatives are not standing behind a replacement justice who will carry forth Kennedy’s measured stance on the topic of abortion “rights.”

I put the word “rights” in quotes not to be cynical, but because as an educator, I find that many students come to law school thinking that a constitutional right is some kind of goodie. But a constitutional right is really about keeping government off your back.

<..snip..>

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/396014-why-conservatives-should-support-roe-v-wade

[Oceander]

Talk about stirring chit up .....

Let the character assassination commence. 

[HoustonSam]

Intellectually honest conservatives don't support Roe for the same reason we would not support a SC opinion which struck down all state laws against murder.

But if Roe is to stand, then why can't it be used to strike down state laws against conversion therapy?

Surely we believe that a homosexual person has the same rights to privacy and to agency over his (or her) own body as a pregnant woman.  His sexuality, his choice.  No one can come between a homosexual person and his doctor.

On the question of conversion therapy, let me be the first to announce that I am proudly "pro-choice" and entirely in favor of seeing the "rights" established in Roe now extended to homosexual people who might wish to pursue conversion.

[INVAR]

As stupid an essay and position as if it were instead: "Why Jews should support Nazism".

No Conservative should support infanticide and death to erase the consequences of sex without responsibility.

[Frank Cannon]

Let me start by saying this stupid whore Kim Wehle is a lawyer. It doesn't get any more degenerate than that.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

On oxymoron is a conservative who supports abortion.  It just cannot happen if conservative.

[Oceander]

It’s actually a rather nuanced position. And it makes a lot of sense if, that is, one believes that the Constitution is fundamentally about restraining the power of government over the individual.

[corbe]

   That's the way I read it @Oceander and knew it would be flame bait.  Her using the 2A as a backdrop to make her point was rather weak though, IMHO.

[Restored]

The right to swing your fist ends at someone's nose. That someone is in the womb.

The whole pro-choice argument is irrational.

[Oceander]

The whole thing hangs on whether the right to control your own reproductive equipment - some of the most sensitive parts of your own body - is a fundamental right or not.  Everything else flows from there just as assuredly as the freedom from state restrictions on speech flows, or the right to compensation from a state government for the taking of property. 

[HoustonSam]

It’s actually a rather nuanced position. And it makes a lot of sense if, that is, one believes that the Constitution is fundamentally about restraining the power of government over the individual.

I think we all agree that the Constitution is just that, a charter to restrain the power of government.  But a nuanced position would be one that recognizes that government does in fact have power over individuals, and that distinguishes just from unjust applications of that power.  I don't see that distinction developed clearly in the article.

That conservatives are quick to advocate a restraint of government power regarding the private possession of firearms in no way requires conservatives to be equally quick to restrain government power over the protection of life.

[jmyrlefuller]

The whole thing hangs on whether the right to control your own reproductive equipment - some of the most sensitive parts of your own body - is a fundamental right or not.  Everything else flows from there just as assuredly as the freedom from state restrictions on speech flows, or the right to compensation from a state government for the taking of property.

You forget the rights of who is in that reproductive equipment, and whether or not who is in there actually counts as a person.

[dfwgator]

It’s actually a rather nuanced position. And it makes a lot of sense if, that is, one believes that the Constitution is fundamentally about restraining the power of government over the individual.

What about the "individual" growing inside of the womb?

[Restored]

An abortion always results in the death of a human being. The Right to Life supersedes all other rights. You have the right to Free Speech unless it will result in the death of another innocent human being. You have the right to bear arms unless it will result in the death of another innocent human being. Women can actually be jailed for harming their unborn child. It happened to my cousin.  She was put into a facility to protect her unborn child from her behavior.
Abortion is irrational.

[Oceander]

You forget the rights of who is in that reproductive equipment, and whether or not who is in there actually counts as a person.

Not at all.  The fetus’ rights, whatever the full scope of those may be, don’t Trump those of the woman until the fetus can survive outside the womb in some concrete, meaningful way, which is primarily at the point of viability, although I would argue it only arises when the State has the real ability to step in and take over the gestation process.  Until then, it is so wholly subsidiary to the woman that the State, at least, cannot use its existence as an excuse to override the woman’s right to control her own body.

[corbe]

   If Roe vs. Wade was overturned, would abortions stop? History proves otherwise.

[Oceander]

An abortion always results in the death of a human being. The Right to Life supersedes all other rights. You have the right to Free Speech unless it will result in the death of another innocent human being. You have the right to bear arms unless it will result in the death of another innocent human being. Women can actually be jailed for harming their unborn child. It happened to my cousin.  She was put into a facility to protect her unborn child from her behavior.
Abortion is irrational.

Lots of things result in the death of a human being.  Mistakenly exercising your right to self-defense results in the death of an innocent individual as well.  Does that mean that self-defense using lethal force is not a fundamental right?

[Oceander]

   If Roe vs. Wade was overturned, would abortions stop? History proves otherwise.

In a word, no.

[Oceander]

What about the "individual" growing inside of the womb?

See my response upthread to jmyrlefuller

[mystery-ak]

 

[Restored]

Lots of things result in the death of a human being.  Mistakenly exercising your right to self-defense results in the death of an innocent individual as well.  Does that mean that self-defense using lethal force is not a fundamental right?

Self-defense is not a pre-meditated act. Abortion is. If you go into a gun shop, announce you are going to a bar and shoot Billy for taking your Stetson hat, they will not sell you a gun. If you get a gun to shoot Billy, the police will deny you the right to bear arms.
If you go into a clinic and announce you would like to pay a doctor to kill your unborn child, they will gladly do that.
If you walk down the street obviously pregnant, drinking a quart of vodka, they will deny you your rights in order to protect that same baby.

[Oceander]

Self-defense is not a pre-meditated act. Abortion is. If you go into a gun shop, announce you are going to a bar and shoot Billy for taking your Stetson hat, they will not sell you a gun. If you get a gun to shoot Billy, the police will deny you the right to bear arms.
If you go into a clinic and announce you would like to pay a doctor to kill your unborn child, they will gladly do that.
If you walk down the street obviously pregnant, drinking a quart of vodka, they will deny you your rights in order to protect that same baby.

Intentional or not does not go to whether the right to control your own body is a fundamental right. 

And the rules regarding how obviously inebriated persons are treated are sui generis because all sorts of general rules are violated when an inebriated person is dealt with. What would be an actionable assault if done to a sober person is not, in many cases, when done to an inebriated person. 

The same goes for unconscious people who appear to be in need of serious medical attention.  An operation that would be considered an assault if no consent were obtained from a conscious person generally is not if done to an unconscious person who appears to be in need of medical attention.

But those are not the cases in question. 

[Oceander]

Irrational is privileging a smattering of cells that, in several months might, just might, become a baby over the right of the person to whom those cells are attached to control what goes on with their own body before that possibility has become fact.

[Jazzhead]

You forget the rights of who is in that reproductive equipment, and whether or not who is in there actually counts as a person.

The only one who "counts as a person" is the woman.   Not the fetus.  Unless and until there's a constitutional amendment providing the rights of citizens to pre-viable fetuses.

As I've said many times before, this does not prevent folks of good will from persuading and supporting women who do the right thing.  But this is NOT  - from the legal perspective - a case of one person's rights conflicting with another.   A pre-viable fetus is not legally a person.  A pre-viable fetus does not have legal rights vis a vis the mother.  It is a part of the woman's body over which she - and she alone - has dominion.  The Constitution rightfully protects such dominion from coercion by the State.

And,  yes, the protection of one's individual liberty and autonomy from coercion by the State is fundamentally conservative.   And to demand that State exercise coercion over a woman's fundamental decision whether to reproduce is authoritarian, not conservative.       

[Restored]

Irrational is privileging a smattering of cells that, in several months might, just might, become a baby over the right of the person to whom those cells are attached to control what goes on with their own body before that possibility has become fact.

What else will it become?
I'm OK with a woman having an abortion so long as the unborn child isn't harmed in the process.