Say Anything Blog

The phrase “a woman’s right to an abortion” has been the manner in which this issue has been discussed for a long time, and is now a generally accepted shorthand reference to the debate.

Not every right is defined explicitly in the Constitution.  Due to the transient nature of human existence, any guiding instrument is going to be deficient in predicting future developments.  That instrument, therefore, must needs be ambiguous and flexible enough to speak to an endless stream of generations, while maintaining the most critical common threads of our governmental principles.

I’m a young (student) opposed to abortion rights as well; that is, I don’t think the Constituion contains a right to an abortion.

Where’s the bias?

The phrase “a woman’s right to an abortion” has been the manner in which this issue has been discussed for a long time, and is now a generally accepted shorthand reference to the debate.

Not every right is defined explicitly in the Constitution. Due to the transient nature of human existence, any guiding instrument is going to be deficient in predicting future developments. That instrument, therefore, must needs be ambiguous and flexible enough to speak to an endless stream of generations, while maintaining the most critical common threads of our governmental principles.

I see.  So therefore we should all just bow down to the way liberals want to refer to the debate.  Because if we stretch, twist and bend the Constitution then kind of squint our eyes while reading it the right to an abortion is obviously in there.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The Constitution has a mechanism by which to evolve.  It is called amendment.  If you want a specific right, get the Constitution amended to include it.  The amendment process assures us that whatever is amended to the Constitution is really the will of the people.

Rob:

Because if we stretch, twist and bend the Constitution then kind of squint our eyes while reading it the right to an abortion is obviously in there.

No, which is why Alito and I are opposed to the concept of “abortion rights.”

I don’t understand your point here at all. Aren’t you opposed to abortion rights? How else would you classify yourself?

I find it kind of funny that liberals have been trying to disarm us for as long as I can remember, despite a very clear amendment in the constitution, it even has it’s own number, 2.  Yet the same liberals are up in arms to defend a “Constitutional right” that is almost impossible to see in the constituion.

Whoops sorry, my common sense got the best of me, silly me.

Ha! The liberal position on gun control just makes absolutely no sense to me, whatsoever, Cashin. In certain respects, I could better understand conservative opposition to gun ownership than I could liberal opposition (neither is right, however).

If I remember correctly, the Constitution is supposed to be a document that lays out what the government’s roles and responsibilities are.  Rights remain with the people, except where they are given to the Government.

If you look at the passage of the Bill of Rights into the Constitution and the conversation around it, you’ll find that there were many founders that thought that the Bill of Rights were unnecessary-- since the Constitution was silent on the issue, the rights were with the people.  Since some people in would have troubles ratifying the Constitution without some kind of guarantee that their rights would be saved, the Bill of Rights were added.

There was no specific “Right to Privacy” or “Right to Abortion"-- there was nothing at all.  This allowed the states to pass laws regarding this and any other thing and make it right or wrong for the state.

Let’s not get bogged down in “Is there a right in the Constitution” because that’s the wrong issue.  The issue is, should this be a right derived into the Constitution-- the answer is a most definite no.

No, which is why Alito and I are opposed to the concept of “abortion rights.”

I don’t understand your point here at all. Aren’t you opposed to abortion rights? How else would you classify yourself?

I was being sarcastic in response to MI’s post.

Let’s not get bogged down in “Is there a right in the Constitution” because that’s the wrong issue. The issue is, should this be a right derived into the Constitution– the answer is a most definite no.

Isn’t whether or not a certain right is in the Constitution and whether or not we should derive a right from the Constitution basically the same thing?

My point is that abortion is not a right because it is not addressed in the Constitution.  This leaves it as an issue to be decided by the states.  Rights, in our system of government, are not something that can be left up for decision by voters.  Something is either a right protected by the Constitution or it is a privelege to be regulated by the consent of the governed.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I was being sarcastic in response to MI’s post.

Dave must have forgotten to turn on his sarcasm detector this morning.

You’re not getting what I’m saying. Pro-life people, like Alito, are opposed to the concept of abortion “rights”, which makes this article correct.

I call myself a person “opposed to abortion rights”; don’t all (or most) opponents of Roe v. Wade think so too?

It was Alito’s opposition to abortion that troubled me but rather the categorization of abortion as a “right” by the journalist responsible for the article.

Got it now?

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I honestly don’t, and I’m not just playing.

There’s a dispute as to whether abortion is a right or not. Alito feels it is not; he opposes that concept.

How would you have rewritten the article?

I’d have left out rights:

As a young government lawyer opposed to abortion, Samuel Alito argued for a legal strategy of chipping away at the landmark Supreme Court ruling rather than mounting an all-out assault likely to inflict a defeat on the Reagan administration, according to documents released Wednesday.

That way the article doesn’t define abortion as a right (regardless of whether or not Alito is opposed to it) and is therefore neutral on the subject.  By calling them “abortion rights” the journalist inserts an opinion.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob:  But we don’t even know for certain whether Alito is opposed to abortion or not; further, whether he is or is not should have no bearing on his role as a judge.

For example, I am opposed to “abortion rights” but I am not opposed to abortion, as you well know.

We know that Alito is opposed to abortion rights, as he has stated on several occasions his opposition to Roe v. Wade. To the best of my knowledge, he hasn’t answered any questions listing his moral opposition to abortion itself--by writing it the way you said it, it appears to be even more opinionated.

Rob:  With all due respect, I have to disagree with you.  The real obscenity of Roe v Wade was that it created abortion as a constitutional right, without amending the Constitution. This is what is meant by legislating from the bench.  It is really amending the Constitution from the bench.  Until Roe v Wade is reversed, one can properly refer to “abortion rights”. Unfortunately, it isn’t editorializing.