wat0n wrote:It makes sense if you want to assess whether women had the right to seek an abortion (not necessarily funded by the government, of course) and to understand the evolution of the law.
No, it does not make sense to assess access to abortion, since (as I already explained) abortion meant something different to people back then.
I guess because Hale wrote about the history of common law, so he's a valid source on the matter.
So did many other people.
This inability to provide a good reason why Hale was specifically chosen supports my point that Alito chose him simply because Hale has the same misogynist notions.
It's even worse than that. Alito claims abortion was not legal before quickening but that's clearly not what Blackstone says, plainly, in his book.
He uses some examples of cases where a type of felony-murder crime would justify charging a doctor who performed an abortion of a "child" who killed the woman for murder, but that's only because neither Hale nor Blackstone mention anything about quickening. Yet, both also said life begins only when the fetus is quick, so one could then wonder if their understanding of "child" includes non-quick fetuses or not. I think the most reasonable way to interpret their position is that it did not.
Then, regarding Roe v Wade's analysis of laws banning abortion passed by the states during the 19th century, Alito states:
But Roe v Wade did not actually imply that. From a fragment I quoted earlier:
Clearly, Roe v Wade did not claim or even hint abortion was banned by the states because of Victorian customs. In fact, what it does imply is that states banned abortion to protect the mother's life.
….and yet here you are defending Alito.
No, that's not my position at all. I never said that suddenly men should suddenly have more bodily autonomy if doing so would kill or seriously harm others. If you disagree go ahead and quote me on it.
I hope you will not now say "only women can get pregnant".
Then you should clarify your position.
At this point, it seems like you are defending Alito and his arguments against RvW.
You also argued that the bodily autonomy of pregnant people and others is limited and you did so in a context that targets mainly women.
You also seem to be defending Hale, the man who lied and said marital rape was legal, and do not seem to be interested in checking to see if Hale is even telling the truth.
They have nothing to do with abortion or Hale's accuracy in describing 17th century English common law.
….except the fact that his misogyny caused him to lie about the marital rape law, and could have caused him to also lie about abortion.
He also thinks it is perfectly acceptable for the state to use violence against women as long as it has traditional support from the Bible and English law.
The fact that you keep sidestepping this makes it seem like you agree that bodily autonomy is only for cis men.
Point 2) does, but you haven't backed it up.
You are the one who's claiming Hale was a misogynist, as if it had anything to do with abortion.
Banning abortion is rooted in misogyny.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...