tamas,
The entire thing was mistermed for decades to advantage the other position.
Terming this as rights is crucial.
There is the medical care and the legal discussion.
For our purposes here this is a legal discussion. Even as medical treatments are discussed.
The Captain: That’s infringing a right that has medical consequences but it is still a right.
Within context, I agree.
But the crucial point for a sane and functional civil society is to put many issues far far away from governmental control, and sex and reproduction and functioning of families is one of those issues. Thus, it is mostly not a personal right that is at issue, but rather a civil right.
Picky picky david, but I think the nuances in these issues are crucial. Why? Well, gay rights are more solidly founded in “none of your business” than “I have a right.”
david fb
david fb,
Gay rights and abortion rights were both planted in the legal concepts of privacy rights before prior courts.
Unfortunately neither one is satisfactorily decided by congress.
Either we all have rights or we take your rights away eventually. Then we take away my rights as well.
There’s a Dutch non-profit group that’s already mailing abortion pills to women in the craphole states.
A Dutch doctor and the internet are making sure Americans have access to abortion pills
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/dutch-doctor-internet…
intercst
That’s infringing a right that has medical consequences but it is still a right.
The problem with focusing on the abortion as the right is that it is easy for the opposition to say “says who?”. Whereas, most people are likely to get behind the idea of not having the government interfere in the relationship between a person and their doctor as a general principle, of which abortion is only one manifestation.
Indeed, as we are discovering post-Dobbs, there is actually a whole lot of other medical issues impacted, not just abortion … IVF, ectopic pregnancies, some forms of birth control, miscarriages, etc. All of which should be medical issues between the doctor and patient. Not to mention, of course, the other rights which are threatened by this direction, including birth control, same sex marriage, and regulating allowable forms of sex.
Picky picky david, but I think the nuances in these issues are crucial. Why? Well, gay rights are more solidly founded in “none of your business” than “I have a right.”
Indeed! This is another way of stating the principle I was attempting to express.
tamas,
I hear all of that differently.
I hear it as under the umbrella of “women’s rights”. People can and are rallying behind that.
tamhas,
I just realized your spelling. Sorry.
I hear it as under the umbrella of “women’s rights”. People can and are rallying behind that.
Yes, people can rally around it, but people can also oppose it based on their prejudices whereas no one wants the government getting in between them and their doctor.
No problem.
BTW, Tamhas is the Gaelic version of Thomas and is pronounced Ta’as, where the ’ is a glottal stop. I say this because there used to be a certain unpleasant person on TMF who would constantly refer to me as Tammy. Nothing wrong with Tammy as a name, but it has nothing to do with me.
Yes, people can rally around it, but people can also oppose it based on their prejudices whereas no one wants the government getting in between them and their doctor.
I am beginning to get you, Tamhas. The difference is to codify all of these matters in congress as privacy rights.
The problem with focusing on the abortion as the right is that it is easy for the opposition to say “says who?”.
This is the same argument for people calling themselves “progressive” and “liberal” because it sells better. And that was the reason for my ‘rights’ post. I hate to see language destroyed.
Hayek 1956:
"The fact that this book was originally written with only the British public in mind does not appear to have seriously affected its intelligibility for the American reader. But there is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term ‘liberal’ in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftist movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that ‘liberal’ has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control.
https://softwaretimes.com/files/hayek%20and%20election%20200…
The Captain
BTW, Tamhas is the Gaelic version of Thomas and is pronounced Ta’as, where the ’ is a glottal stop.
It’s little tidbits of info like this that I love stumbling across. Thanks for that.
–Peter
Maybe we can call it “self defence” so it will appeal to Texans.
tamhas,
I look forward to be in Dublin a few weeks from now.
I know very little Gaelic. No training states side.
The whole problem here is people wanting to get in between the person and her doctor in a way that doesn’t occur for any other area of medicine.
Euthanasia
Postpartum abortion (ie death penalty)
Sex determining treatment to chemically otherwise alter the current trajectory of events, intervening at a pre-teen or post- teen age.
These come to mind at the present.
YR
The difference is to codify all of these matters in congress as privacy rights.
Right, the point is not that abortion is private, but that all health issues are private to the patient and doctor.
Right, the point is not that abortion is private, but that all health issues are private to the patient and doctor.
Is that really the case?
We afford a lot of privacy to that relationship, but it’s not completely outside the realm of government interference or regulation. There’s a number of things that we don’t let doctors do to their patients, even if the patients request that those things be done. You can’t donate your last kidney or consent to unapproved/prohibited medical treatments (or in most places assisted suicide) - or rather, you can but your doctor might be subject to government sanction for violating prohibitions on such things. These things aren’t analogous to abortion (or to each other), but the privacy of health issues isn’t quite as absolute or categorical as described above.
That’s why you’d never see a ‘simple’ statutory solution codifying a global ‘privacy right’ to health care decisions. We still want the government to be able to intervene in the doctor-patient relationship in some ways - even if only to protect the patient against misdeeds by the doctor. Once you start putting pen to paper and drafting a statute, you have to start carving out and clarifying what’s supposed to happen in edge cases where we want there to be state-set rules on what doctors can do to patients, even with the patient’s consent. Which is why these types of things are so hard to draft and pass…
Albaby
in a way that doesn’t occur for any other area of medicine.
Right to die- Terry Schiavo
I can tell you from long experience that insurance companies and Medicare get between me and my doctors on a regular basis. Not to mention the FDA.