I'm seeking to understand the Constitutionality for both views of the abortion debate

Let me preface this by first stating that I’m not looking for debate here, but simply personally looking to better understand the Constitutional aspects of each position. For example from what I can gather thus far one position seems to be arguing for the superiority of the 10th Amendment, whereas the other seems to be arguing for the superiority of the 14th Amendment?

Here’s another question. What exactly are the states that are outlawing abortion doing? In other words are they instilling the Constitutional definition of personhood onto the unborn? Are they saying that the legal definition of murder applies to the unborn? Or are they saying that abortion is not good for the people of their state in say the same way they would aregue that drugs are not good and hence should be illegal?

Example’s of other issues relating to the 10th and 14th would be helpful. I’m sure there are other questions I have but are just not coming to me at the moment.


1 Like



An opposing view doesn’t mean there’s no validity to the position. Very educated SC Justices do disagree. If the Constitution was very crystal clear would not every decision be 9-0?

Then debate is inevitable, is it not?

The pro-abortion argument arises at it’s root from the concept of “substantive due process.” Essentially permitting courts to cherry pick rights out of thin air. Including the right to take your property (slaves) to places that forbade slavery. :smile:

Substantive due process has been a train wreck from Dred Scott to the present day. It is why Roe v Wade, Planned Parenthood v Casey and all of their progeny seemed so contrived and ill reasoned. To the point that many pro-abortion advocates acknowledged they could not be defended.

The other side simply argues the personhood of the zygote/embryo/fetus gives the personal rights of life/liberty/property from the moment of conception.

I don’t stand with either side.

I adhere closer to the view of personhood at quickening, a classically held view, rather than personhood from conception.

I would permit abortion on demand up to a time point corresponding with quickening and restrict it after that point. My point of view essentially eliminates the problematic concept of substantive due process and creates a fact based cutoff point for abortion on demand.

Just my two cents. :smile:


Good post.

1 Like



Does “substantive due process” mean that the 14th is more important than the 10th?

Essentially, yes.

1 Like

Probably a close proximity of where the laws of the majority of the states will end up as this shakes out. They will be a few outliers at each end, but I expect the vast majority of state regulation will come close to your POV.


It is essentially a misinterpretation of the 14th to allow central government to work around the limitations in the rest of the constitution.

For example, I interpret the 14th to apply to the person growing inside the woman or birthing person.

I see it going this way as well, little more stringent in red states, a lot less in blues. Probably more towards heartbeat in reds with more favorable exceptions to rape, incest, and stillbirths.

I happen to think that system gaming lawyers/politicians have been active stretching the 14th Amendment past its intentions, just as the commerce clause has been stretched way past it’s intentions.

Where is “personhood” defined in the Constitution?


Slightly more restrictive than Europe in some states, slightly less in others.

Regardless, no bump in the polls. This was never the firecracker issue it was manufactured to be. :wink:


Roe was based on “penumbras” of privacy implied by the Constitution. The constitution demands warrants before a search, so that is an example of privacy. IMO, I think a general provision of privacy with defined limits might make a good amendment. It is not there.
From the beginning, the courts view was that the beginning of life cannot be defined, and then they went on to define it. The current court seems to,say that the beginning of life cannot be defined so it is up for legislators to set its limits, not the courts.


Personally, my views on abortion are in line with Safiel’s. He uses quickening, I think in terms of viability. IMHO though viability should be determined by medical professionals and not politicians.

Murder has always been in the purview of the States (unless if falls into very specific areas like murdering a federal agent, murder on federal property, etc.) - so to tell you the truth Roe being overturned is fine with me. If different States want to have different laws. I’m fine with that.

The one thing I 100% believe (and I am serious) is that the woman who voluntarily seeks an illegal abortion should be subject to the same criminal and civil penalties that apply to the abortion provider. That is based on the concept of equal treatment under the law.



I think if you check polls in the last week, you will find a bump in those that (a) approve of a moderate abortion stance, and/or (b) disapprove of the SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe.

Now whether the DEMs can translate that into political polls and voter turnout for candidates, that will take some time. But the DEMs are famous for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I don’t really think that this will prevent the GOP from taking the House, that is a given. The Senate is a little iffier. The DEMs (IMHO) would be best served by taking the long view for 2024, 2026, and 2028.

Give lip service to opposing draconian abortion law in Red states, but let them through. It will painful for the women involved but their real life experiences will help the DEMs in the long run.


When was the last time the GOP took both the Senate and the House in the same election?