re: South Carolina Supreme Court rules state consitution contains right to privacy, abortion

quote:

---

Absolutely evil. A right to privacy means privacy to kill your child?

---

Exactly.

So if a husband and wife get into a disagreement about finances and the husband kills the wife, the state can’t do anything because of privacy?

So the right of privacy overrides the right of life.

quote:

---

We are having a calm, rational discussion. I'm answering a psychologist's question about legal matters. We don't need histrionics.

---

The histrionics do get tiresome, don't they?

quote:

---

And I didn't realize we had to go all the way back and justify regulation of medicine.

Do we?

---

This discussion isn't about justification. It's about authority.

Specifically it's about putative authority and the differences in how that putative authority are able to be manifested as actual authority (to regulate the sale of medicine v. the regulation of taking certain medicines)

You stated there was authority for banning sale of certain meds but not the authority to ban the use of those meds. How? Based on what?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are ASSUMING that a fetus has rights,

---

In as much as they are assuming the right to privacy is inclusive of the right to abort a life.

---

They spend 147 pages explaining their rationale.

Agree or disagree with their analysis, but they didn't just pull it out of their asses.

As I understand it, SC selects its judges through an election in the legislature, and the GOP controls the legislature. So, these are judges selected by the GOP.

quote:

---

They spend 147 pages explaining their rationale. Agree or disagree with their analysis, but they didn't just pull it out of their asses.

---

That’s a non sequitur.

And the decision probably didn’t come out of their arse, it came out of their desire to keep abortion legal. Any “legal analysis” was done after the decision was reached, just like Roe.

quote:

---

You are ASSUMING that a fetus has rights, which are not recognized in any jurisdiction.

In your mind, the fight is about a putative "right to life," but LEGALLY that has never been the nature of the fight.

quote:

---

That's where the fight needs to be had, legally.

---

---

But that should never BE a legal fight. It is a philosophical/policy question, not a jurisprudential one. THAT fight belongs in the statehouse, not the courthouse.

Is it, or is it not, good public policy to grant legal rights to a fetus and to thereby restrict the rights of women?

quote:

---

Babies are being dismembered in their mother’s womb. How can you expect calmness?

---

The same way that rational people are expected to have a calm discussion of ANY topic involving the loss of life.

Or they can just primal-scream or maybe hold their breath to the point of losing consciousness.

quote:

---

"LEAVE IT UP TO THE STATES TO DECIDE!"

**STATE MAKES DECISION I DON'T LIKE**

"NO WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT!"

---

1. I'm not a states-rights advocate when it comes to abortion, just like I wouldn't be one in regards to slavery, for instance. There are some things that should be protected across all states, and the protection of life of innocents is one of them.

2. "More government"? Government's primary role is to provide justice for its people. I think protecting the lives of the unborn falls under that category. I think government should stay out of a lot of things, but I don't think it should sit back and let children be killed.