One More On Abortion...

When it comes to talking about abortion, a 5 year old could make armpit fart noises and still sound smarter than Bobbo.

Bob's main argument against a woman's right to make reproductive choices is so simple that I can quote it exactly. Bobbo says there is no right to choose because "Nowhere in the Constitution are you granted the right to get an abortion."

Now, on the face of it, Bobbo is correct. The word "abortion" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution.

But, legally speaking, we have many other rights that are not specifically granted in the Constitution. Like your right to Miranda Warnings. In Miranda v. Arizona, The [Supreme] Court held that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police to fully protect a person's Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights.

Are the Miranda Warnings specifically granted in the Constitution? Nope.

Another Right not granted by Constitution is your Right to Marriage. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down Virginia's miscegenation law on the basis that it invidiously classified on the basis of race...[and] violate[d] the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.

So we have a fundamental right to get married, but does the word "marriage" appear anywhere in the Constitution? Again, no.

And what about the Right to Travel? In Kent v. Dulles, the Supreme Court held that the right to travel is an inherent element of "liberty" that cannot be denied to American citizens. The Supreme Court even expanded this right in Saenz v. Roe. The Court held that the in right to travel contains three separate aspects of traveling between the States: the right to enter one state and leave another, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger...and for those who become permanent residents of a state, the right to be treated equally to native born citizens.

No, the a right to travel does not exist in the Constitution.

But if we use Bob's logic, none of these rights can be said to exist because none of these right are specifically granted by the Constitution. But does anyone think that Bob would argue against these extra-Constitutional rights? Of course not.

Furthermore, if you read Roe v. Wade, you'll find that the rationale found the right to abortion is subsumed within the in the greater right of privacy. The Court stated,

the right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

The Roe holding stands for the proposition that there places within a person's life that the Government has no interest. Reproduction is one area where the Government cannot interfere in the lives of its citizens.

So if the Government cannot interfere, why does Bob think it should? Jeff's original question still stands: Why does Bob feel it so necessary to control women he has never met?! Why does he find it necessary to stop an abortion that doesn't affect him in any tangible way?!

The only reason that I can think of is that Bob is fueled by a smug superiority and believes himself far more moral that than everybody else.

What arrogance!