Home > Issues > Abortion Rights of the Fetus > Justice Ginsburg's Attempt to Head Off the Right to Life

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

Justice Ginsburg's Attempt to Head Off the Right to Life

Peter Zohrab 2019

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map

 

This article is based on Sunstein, Cass R. (2019): Abortion Right Should Be Built on Equality, Not Privacy: Roe v. Wade rests on a wobbly legal foundation. Here’s a firmer one, Bloomberg Opinion, 18 May 2019 (last accessed 12 August 2019).

Abortion is one issue where I had never heard Feminists talk about equality. However, if you search the Web for the combination of the words “abortion” and “equality”, you do find arguments for abortion which are based on a notion of equality . Sunstein (2019) explains that the famous US Supreme Court which legalized abortion, Roe v Wade, referred to privacy factors, rather than equality, as the foundation of its judgment. That is probably why I had never heard Feminists talk about equality in relation to abortion, until I went searching for that.

Sunstein wrote his article because he was afraid that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v Wade. With the very conservative Donald Trump as President, it is likely that any vacancy on the Supreme Court would be filled by a young conservative judge, who would be there for decades. Even as presently constituted, the Supreme Court is considered by some to be likely to overturn Roe v. Wade . So Sunstein wanted to invent a new basis for holding abortion to be legal under the US Constitution. That is why his article is entitled: “Abortion Right Should Be Built on Equality, Not Privacy: Roe v. Wade rests on a wobbly legal foundation. Here’s a firmer one”.

Sunstein says that there are two weaknesses inherent in the privacy argument for abortion:

  1. The US Constitution does not protect privacy in general;

  2. The right of privacy usually has to do with personal information, which does not seem relevant to abortion.

When you put it that way, it is amazing that the Supreme Court made the decision that it made in Roe v Wade. I must conclude that if you get a Supreme Court dominated by (male and female) Feminist judges, they are capable of using any argument at all to legalise abortion!

Sunstein goes on to mention that the Supreme Court in 1992 tried a different approach to supporting abortion. They relied on the concept of liberty. As Sunstein points out, at least the concept of liberty is present in the US Constitution! However, as he also points out,

“Liberty can be curtailed when the interests or rights of others are at stake. What about the fetus?”

Sunstein realizes that the fetus has competing interests with those of its mother (if she wants an abortion). However, it did not even occur to him that the father also has competing interests of his own. What about child support? Why should a father be liable for the upkeep of a child, when he has had no legal right to participate in the decision as to whether it should be aborted or born?

Then Sunstein goes on to cite a 1985 essay by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who later became a Supreme Court Justice herself. Her most important suggestion was to remodel discrimination law so that equality could be seen as relevant to abortion and the US Constitution could be brought to bear on abortion on that basis.

“In thinking about the right to choose, she would have ‘added a distinct sex discrimination theme.’… The very reason that restrictions on abortion are a form of sex discrimination is that only women can get pregnant.”

Sunstein goes on to elucidate the philosophical background to Ginsburg’s thinking as follows:

“… as early as 1985, Ginsburg emphasized the centrality of ‘a woman’s autonomous charge of her full life’s course’ – of ‘her ability to stand in relation to man, society, and the state as an independent, self-sustaining, equal citizen.’”

Sunstein seems to think that Ginsburg has constructed a good argument. However, that is only the case to the extent that no intelligent legal argument is mounted against it. Modern Western countries such as the USA, New Zealand, etc. are so insanely Feminist that it may well be the case that no intelligent legal argument would or will be mounted against it in court.

As I stated in my book, Sex, Lies & Feminism,

Political Correctness acts as a smokescreen for certain forms of oppression, by taking it for granted that only particular scapegoat groups are capable of carrying out oppression.

The point here is that anti-Feminist versions of her argument can easily be constructed, as follows. Two versions must be stated: one that asserts Men’s Rights as against female domination and another that asserts the child’s right to life:

 

I) Men’s right to be free from female domination

In thinking about Choice for Men , we must add a distinct sex discrimination theme.… The very reason that Feminist views on abortion are a form of sex discrimination is that only women can get pregnant – which means that men depend on women’s bodies in order to be able to produce offspring.

We should elucidate the philosophical background to the above thinking as follows:

We must emphasise the centrality of a man’s autonomous charge of his full life’s course – of his ability to stand in relation to woman, society, and the state as an independent, self-sustaining, equal citizen, with the right to procreate.

 

II) The child’s right to life

In thinking about abortion, we must add a distinct age discrimination theme.… The reason that Feminist views about abortion are a form of age discrimination is that only very young humans are vulnerable to being aborted – which means that they depend on the state to protect them.

We should elucidate the philosophical background to the above thinking as follows:

We must emphasise the centrality of a human’s autonomous charge of his/her full life’s course – of his/her ability to stand in relation to adults, society, and the state as an independent, potentially self-sustaining, equal citizen, with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

See also:

 

 

FAQ

Webmaster

Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

23 August 2019

Top