NationStates Jolt Archive

Since there is no 'right' to privacy mentioned in the American Constitution, then the original Roe v. Wade ruling will fall easily under any serious judicial review.

Any serious attempt to 'save' womens ability to murder their own children or continue to force men to pay for un-wanted children the men wish terminated opens the door through which they may both be swept out.

In America a women can kill a mans unborn child or have it and charge him for her decisions and expenses either way, this is totaly unjust. It requires men to surrender their rights when they have intercourse and women to gain rights over his finances and unborn childs right to life. Legally there is no right to privacy in the constitution but there is a right to life. Under the 14th amendment the law has to be applied equally to all and abortion rights being one sided currently fail to meet the protocol

American women aren't rallying to protect their rights, they are rallying to keep men from having the same rights, it's classic reverse discrimination and as immoral as the affirmative action policies in the States.

The above is so flawed, I'm not going to even bother pointing out the problems. Open a book.

It's so hard to tell what they're going to do. I'd like to think that both will go with precedent, since the precedent in this area makes darn good sense and abortion hardly meets the requirements set out in precedent for overturning precedent (there has to be a better way to say athat). But I really don't know. I wouldn't put it past Bush to coach his justices to walk the line to get voted in after making sure they'd vote his way.
I seriously doubt that Alito is going to vote to uphold Carhartt (since that's the one directly in the line of fire here--Roe just gets majorly winged by upholding this law). His judicial history shows that he has little respect for precedent when it gets in the way of his personal feelings on a matter, as is evidenced by some of the more egregious decisions that the Supreme Court overturned while he was a Circuit Court Judge.

Roberts I'm less certain about, mainly because he has less of a track record to be able to suss out his temperament, but I can't help but imagine Bush grilled him on this before selecting him. I just don't see him as another Souter, though.

The wild card in this is a question of how they go after the law. I'd be willing to bet that Thomas and Scalia and Kennedy want to uphold the law--Kennedy dissented vigorously in Carhartt, after all--and I'll go ahead and lump Alito in there. Roberts, however, might try convincing them to dump the law, but not via the health exception set out in Casey. They could go at it via the state's rights angle, which could increase the ability of individual states to regulate abortion and would effectively gut Roe. Same end result, and it sticks the 4 more liberal justices in a corner, wanting to uphold the lower courts' decisions and overturn the law, but with different results.

<snip>
Certainly my favorite yardstick, common sense, tells us that our thoughts and emotions are not for public consumption unless we say so. Which brings us back to abortion. My argument is that a right to privacy does exist, but it is not extended to abortion. Any procedure that requires the services of a doctor, nurses, hospital, insurance company, and possibly a government agency or two isn't private in the commonly used sense of the word. So again, I'll say that the Constitution, as amended, doesn't provide any federal protection for abortions. Return the power to the states.
First of all, I don't believe that "a government agency or two" is involved in abortion at all, unless you count tax fund allocation. All states receive federal tax funding to support state-subsidized medical services and hospitals. Private hospitals also depend on federal subsidies. So since it's federal money, shouldn't the federal government have oversight and not the states (assuming that any government body should be overseeing this at all)? Or do you also advocate cutting off all federal funding for health care services?

Also, I fail to see how you can legitimately single out abortion from all other medical procedures, all of which require doctors, nurses and all the other parties you listed, and the same government money. You have already been asked by others how you draw this line. I wish you would answer.

I'm not holding myself out as a lawyer. I can only bill my clients for 24 hours every day. But I do think that a lay person should be able to read and form an opinion on the law. If our law is so complex that a lay person cannot read it and hold an opinion, then it should be simplified. I've given you my opinion and you have repeated opinions of others. That doesn't make for much of a discussion, does it?.

Would you say that if science is so complex that a lay person cannot read it and have a valid opinion, the it should be simplified?

You seem to think that you can spend a few minutes reading a document that has been interpreted by professionals for over 200 years and you can simply ignore those 200 years of interpretation because your opinion is just as valid. You could educate yourself about the document, but you choose not to. Instead, you claim it is the laws fault that you don't understand it.

I provide you with quotes from the Supreme Court so that you can educate yourself about what the law is and why it is that way. It is not my fault that you choose to simply say "I disagree." You don't even argue the points made by SCOTUS.


I think you misunderstood what I object to in hate crime sentencing. A man can certainly be guilty of murder, manslaughter, or assault. But to say that he deserves a longer, harder sentence because he had hateful thoughts is absolutely wrong. What he thinks is his business, and no one elses. It certainly doesn't make the victim any more or less injured. It is difficult to me to imagine any violent crime occuring without any malice toward the victim. Maybe a mob hit -- "It's just business".

What you object to in hate crime sentencing is sentencing based on mens rea. Intent has been part of the law and sentencing as long as their has been criminal law. Again, its not my fault that you don't know that.

To repeat an earlier comment, I don't consider that the 14th Amendment has anywhere near the power that it has been given over the years. It was just a hack to the Constitution that guaranteed that states would be powerless to deprive slaves of their rights. It's been used out of context for just about any purpose that a court has seen fit for it to serve. In fact, non-slave citizens already had all the rights and it is only a redundant statement in that scope.

1. Actually, the express intent of the 14th Amendment at the time it was adopted was more than you assert. Proponents of the 14th Amendment saw it as a new bastion of protection for fundamental rights, including the Bill of Rights.

2. You still refuse to understand that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states except through this "out of context" use you object to. You don't quite get it. That is understandable. Incorporation is a strange idea to most everyone -- particularly as most assume the Bill of Rights applied to the states to begin with.

Here are a handful of short, fairly simple explanations of incorporation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29
http://www.answers.com/topic/incorporation-bill-of-rights
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0047310-00&templatename=/article/article.html

I have not read all 3 100% carefully, but they should be generally accurate on this subject.

Here also is an article from the NRA explaining incorporation. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=23

Incorporation is the application of provisions of the Bill of Rights as limitations to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The BoR was originally only a limitation on the federal government. After passage of the 14th amendment, the Supreme Court has held that provisions of the BoR are fundamental to liberty and may not be infringed by the states.

Under your view of the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights would still not apply to the states. You'd have no freedom of speech, religion, etc., except against the federal government.

Again, you missed my point about thoughts and privacy. If you'll read the dissent to Roe v Wade, you'll find that I'm not to much different that those judges in my opinion of what is private and what is public. When you talk about free thought vs free speech, you are no longer discussing privacy, but free speech. Yes, thoughts are private, but speech is not. Speech is protected explicitly by the First amendment, Privacy is vaguely protected by the Ninth.

If you think privacy is protected by the Ninth Amendment and not the 14th, you need to educate yourself. Griswold v. Connecticut (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/381/479.html), 381 US 479 (1965).

Here is yet another quote from the Supreme Court - this one written by Chief Justice Rhenquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

Of course I do. I mentioned Texas vs. Johnson, which gives a person the right to burn the flag (which was a ruling against democracy). This is because the burning of a flag, or any display of opinion in a way consistent with the rights of others, is, in effect, "speech." The spirit of the law is there, and even conservatives can see that. The question is, when rights come into conflict with each other, what should be the outcome? Of course the woman has the right to life, liberty, and property, but so does the child. To me the best way of handling this is to establish parameters, and let the democratic process deal with the gray areas. To me those parameters are conception (i.e. before conception no law should be allowed) and the life of the child after birth. As I have said before, I am pro-choice. The problems I have with Roe are they try to divine a standard so fundamental, that all other things being equal it is better to have a balance determined by legislatures in their respective states, than by nine justices in Washington D.C.

1. You haven't actually read Roe (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html) or Planned Parenthood (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html), have you?

2. It is funny that you pick Texas v. Johnson as a case people agree with. You realize that the issue is still being fought over, with pending constitutional amendments to ban flag desecration?

3. Again, the point of having a Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment is precisely so something as fundamental as the rights of a woman over her own body aren't subject to the viscitudes of public opinion.

For those who are utterly convinced that D&X or D&E are used as "birth control" for women who "just don't want to use other forms of birth control," lets look at a few studies of the methods themselves:

From a paper which sought to compare D&X (dilation and extraction) and D&E (dilation and evacuation) which tracked 383 abortions at a hospital over a period of time, the reasons for the procedures were as follows:

For D&E (which the authors found was most often used earlier than D&X, with very little other difference between them):

42.6% Abnormal fetal karyotype (In other words, chromosomal defects)
36.5% Structural fetal abnormality
10.3% Intrauterine fetal demise
5.3% premature cervical dilation/PPROM (preterm premature rupture of membranes)
8.4% Other

*Some women had more than one indication
Even if we assume that all of the "other" category did not fit into any of the listed categories, and that all of the "other"s just didn't want to use birth control (not very good assumptions), we aren't looking at a huge percentage here.

Let's look at D&X from the same paper (a procedure used only 120 times in the seven-year period of the study):

27.5% Abnormal fetal karyotype (In other words, chromosomal defects)
39.2% Structural fetal abnormality
11.7% Intrauterine fetal demise
16.7% premature cervical dilation/PPROM (preterm premature rupture of membranes)
10.8% Other

From another, more recent study investigating the effects of such abortions on later pregnancy (Look kids! These were women who actually wanted to have a child!):

69% Fetal abnormality
10% Intrauternine fetal demise
9.2% PPROM or spontaneous cervical dilation
5% Other



Somehow, the "others" don't seem to be winning out here, and chances are that not all of them (hell, probably not even most of them) are "I didn't want to use birth control and now I'm going to have an abortion."
:rolleyes:

This post was worth repeating.

Would you say that if science is so complex that a lay person cannot read it and have a valid opinion, the it should be simplified?

You seem to think that you can spend a few minutes reading a document that has been interpreted by professionals for over 200 years and you can simply ignore those 200 years of interpretation because your opinion is just as valid. You could educate yourself about the document, but you choose not to. Instead, you claim it is the laws fault that you don't understand it.

I provide you with quotes from the Supreme Court so that you can educate yourself about what the law is and why it is that way. It is not my fault that you choose to simply say "I disagree." You don't even argue the points made by SCOTUS.

I absolutely think that scientific principles that are fundamental to daily life are easy enough to understand by anyone that cares. Newton's three laws are so important and so simple that they should be well known, but of course they are taken for granted. Same with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These documents can be read and understood by anyone that cares. We don't need to Latin to understand our rights anymore than we need Greek to understand Newton. If I claimed I didn't understand something about law, I'm sure it was criminal codes or tax codes or other legal documents written by lawyers for lawyers.

Citations go the same way. Reading opinions is an interesting pastime, but it isn't essential to the basic understanding of what is contained in the Constitution, as amended. Repeating opinions may be a fundamental part of lawyering, but it doesn't make for a very interesting discussion.

Plus, there are always the dissenting opinions. These guys weren't wrong; they were outvoted. So, there's a lot of interesting stuff in the dissents, too.



1. Actually, the express intent of the 14th Amendment at the time it was adopted was more than you assert. Proponents of the 14th Amendment saw it as a new bastion of protection for fundamental rights, including the Bill of Rights.

2. You still refuse to understand that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states except through this "out of context" use you object to. You don't quite get it. That is understandable. Incorporation is a strange idea to most everyone -- particularly as most assume the Bill of Rights applied to the states to begin with.
Incorporation is the application of provisions of the Bill of Rights as limitations to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The BoR was originally only a limitation on the federal government. After passage of the 14th amendment, the Supreme Court has held that provisions of the BoR are fundamental to liberty and may not be infringed by the states.

Under your view of the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights would still not apply to the states. You'd have no freedom of speech, religion, etc., except against the federal government.



If you think privacy is protected by the Ninth Amendment and not the 14th, you need to educate yourself. Griswold v. Connecticut (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/381/479.html), 381 US 479 (1965).

Going up the ladder, the Griswold case seemed to me to depend very heavily on the 9th amendment. I don't think I'm taking the majority opinion out of context by looking at the opening paragraph:

MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, concurring.

I agree with the Court that Connecticut's birth-control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy, and I join in its opinion and judgment. Although I have not accepted the view that "due process" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates all of the first eight Amendments (see my concurring opinion in Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 410 , and the dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN in Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117, 154 ), I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights. My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted and that it embraces the right of marital privacy though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution 1 is supported both by numerous [381 U.S. 479, 487] decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment. In reaching the conclusion that the right of marital privacy is protected, as being within the protected penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights, the Court refers to the Ninth Amendment, ante, at 484. I add these words to emphasize the relevance of that Amendment to the Court's holding.

Looks to me like the Ninth amendment is what swayed the majority of the majority.

Let's take a shot at incorporation. From what I read in these references, and most clearly in the NRA citation, the incorporation that you mention is done selectively. The NRA author states:

Under the process of "Selective Incorporation," most of the principal guarantees of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated and made applicable to the states. Provisions that have not yet been incorporated include the Third and Seventh Amendments, the right to grand jury indictment of the Fifth Amendment, the guarantee of freedom from excessive bail of the Eighth Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms of the Second Amendment.

While large portions of the Bill of Rights may have been incorporated, there are still portions that are not guaranteed. The right to privacy, as provided by the Ninth amendment, appears to be included. I still agree with the minority of the Supreme Court in the Griswold decision when they state: "'Privacy'" is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things ..." They, too, prefer the simple and direct language of the Constitution.

The minority in the Roe case also had a clear understanding that 'privacy' could mean almost anything. The point was clearly made that substituting the word 'privacy' for language already in the Constitution was not acceptable in this case, either. Mr. Rehnquist stated in his dissent "I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of "privacy" is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not "private" in the ordinary usage of that word."

Again, I'm not alone in my opinions, just outnumbered.

That's really about all I have time for tonight. There's a rocket with my name on it that launches early in the AM. I need to get some gear ready.

I absolutely think that scientific principles that are fundamental to daily life are easy enough to understand by anyone that cares. Newton's three laws are so important and so simple that they should be well known, but of course they are taken for granted. Same with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These documents can be read and understood by anyone that cares. We don't need to Latin to understand our rights anymore than we need Greek to understand Newton. If I claimed I didn't understand something about law, I'm sure it was criminal codes or tax codes or other legal documents written by lawyers for lawyers.

What an amusing example since Newton's laws are some of the most misunderstood by those with a passing knowledge of them. They come up in debate all the time.

Hmmm... the US Constitution can be interpreted easily yet the founders felt it was necessary to establish an entire court whose sole purpose is to interpret the Constitution. Mind you these were the writers of the Constitution. And your claim that it's clear to anyone who reads it is evidenced by the fact that every decision is 9-0. Yep, lots of accuracy there.

Precedent plays strongly into the interpretation of the amendments as is standard in the practice. Precedent is also an intended aspect of our legal system as modeled after the English system, among others. TCT is presenting precedent to you to help you better understand both the meaning of the language in the US Constitution. I think it's amusing that you think your opinion on the language of the Constitution is equal to that of people who have studied it their entire lives and are experts on the document. I mean your fallacious understanding of the purpose of the fourteenth amendment is substantial evidence that you know everything you need to know about the Constitution.

It's amazing to me how many people on this forum will act as if expelling ignorance is offensive and pretend as if there is some type of nobility in being uneducated on a subject.

What an amusing example since Newton's laws are some of the most misunderstood by those with a passing knowledge of them. They come up in debate all the time.

Hmmm... the US Constitution can be interpreted easily yet the founders felt it was necessary to establish an entire court whose sole purpose is to interpret the Constitution. Mind you these were the writers of the Constitution. And your claim that it's clear to anyone who reads it is evidenced by the fact that every decision is 9-0. Yep, lots of accuracy there.

Precedent plays strongly into the interpretation of the amendments as is standard in the practice. Precedent is also an intended aspect of our legal system as modeled after the English system, among others. TCT is presenting precedent to you to help you better understand both the meaning of the language in the US Constitution. I think it's amusing that you think your opinion on the language of the Constitution is equal to that of people who have studied it their entire lives and are experts on the document. I mean your fallacious understanding of the purpose of the fourteenth amendment is substantial evidence that you know everything you need to know about the Constitution.

It's amazing to me how many people on this forum will act as if expelling ignorance is offensive and pretend as if there is some type of nobility in being uneducated on a subject.
Obviously there is a difference of opinion between us about how much an ordinary citizen should be able to understand about the laws than govern him. I will always hold the opinion that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written by brilliant men, but written so that the people who were consenting to be governed could understand the powers that they were giving to the government. A government of the people can operate in no other manner. When the time comes that complex and arcane interpretations replace the simple and direct language used in these documents, then we will know that we have allowed the government to proceed in the wrong direction. If you truly believe that only a lawyer can read and understand the most fundamental documents of our government, then either the founders failed in their efforts, or you're just wrong.

Unfortunately, I think Pro-Death is going to win out. Alito seems like he leans left.
Do me a favour and take the following test:
http://www.dogbomb.co.uk/idiot-test/

What was your result?




ah. thought so.

Obviously there is a difference of opinion between us about how much an ordinary citizen should be able to understand about the laws than govern him. I will always hold the opinion that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written by brilliant men, but written so that the people who were consenting to be governed could understand the powers that they were giving to the government. A government of the people can operate in no other manner. When the time comes that complex and arcane interpretations replace the simple and direct language used in these documents, then we will know that we have allowed the government to proceed in the wrong direction. If you truly believe that only a lawyer can read and understand the most fundamental documents of our government, then either the founders failed in their efforts, or you're just wrong.

I believe it was written so that ordinary people could understand it, but it was written to be open to a level of interpretation so that it would be malleable to different times. I believe that part of the document should also be clear to the layman. And they were briliantly successful in their efforts.

They wrote two wonderful amendments that require interpretation. One that says just because we didn't mention a right doesn't mean it doesn't exist (you know like the good ol' right to privacy) and a second one that limits federal power but does NOT give that power to the states but instead says some of the power we are turning down goes to the states and some of the power we are turning down goes to the PEOPLE.

They wrote those amendments to absolutely be open to interpretation and created an entity whose job it is to become experts on the language and intent of the document and all amendments to that document and then interpret what rights are reserved for the people and what rights the states can govern. And that entity has been doing that for 200 years.

Arcane interpretations haven't replaced the language. And it doesn't require that you be a lawyer, but given the position of precedence in our legal system, it does require that you educate yourself on the available precedents. You don't care to do so? Fine. But you're handicapping yourself. I'm not a lawyer but I conntinually look into the prior cases in areas that I'm interested. It's an important part of being educated on the issues on which the Supreme Court must rule.

You bashed TCT because he cited those very cases as support for the opinion he holds of current law. He cited those cases because they will absolutely be pertinent if these issues are visited by the Supreme Court. More importantly, he cited those cases because this is a debate forum where you need to support your opinions or your just wasting everyone's time. Here, your opinion has exactly the value of the support you give for it.

But hey, continue to defend ignorance and continue to consider his support just "quoting the opinion of others", but TCT will continue to be a respected poster because when he shows up to the game he makes certain he brings the right equipment. Play without pads if you like, but don't whine about it when you get nailed.

Since there is no 'right' to privacy mentioned in the American Constitution, then the original Roe v. Wade ruling will fall easily under any serious judicial review.

There is no right to vote for president either. Does that mean that a state deciding (as they used to) that the general public couldn't vote for president would fly?

Any serious attempt to 'save' womens ability to murder their own children

Women have no such right. If a woman murders her child, she is treated just like anyone else who murders her child.

or continue to force men to pay for un-wanted children the men wish terminated opens the door through which they may both be swept out.

Children are not terminated - at least not legally.

Under the 14th amendment the law has to be applied equally to all and abortion rights being one sided currently fail to meet the protocol

The law is applied equally to all. Men just can't get pregnant. If a man got pregnant, he would have the right to do with that pregnancy as he wished - whether it would be to abort or carry to term. He would be able to decide between natural birth (although I'm not sure how that would work with the male anatomy) or C-section, just as a woman can.

Nothing is being applied unequally here - women are simply the only ones who the discussion can possibly apply to. By your logic, the law is one-sided because we don't let women get vasectomies.

American women aren't rallying to protect their rights, they are rallying to keep men from having the same rights, it's classic reverse discrimination and as immoral as the affirmative action policies in the States.

Men have the right to choose an abortion - just as soon as they can get pregnant in the first place.

*snip*

You're a better person than I (yeah, I said it). I couldn't be arsed to deal with that nonsense.

Let us have the ability to discern what is right. Allow our government to discern the just from the unjust. Protect us from the thought that convenience is king, that personal rights are more important than right and wrong.

I consider my rights worth losing, if it means that one person shall live. I would give up my right to vote, my right to freedom, if one soldier could come back home from Iraq, if one murder victim could be saved, if one unborn baby would be born, not killed.

Would you deem it just, for a doctor to inject a lethal drug into a quadrapalegic, without the man's consent, just because it would be convenient for a parent? That is the same as an abortion: a person with no means of supporting himself, having death chose for him.

I just wish for once we could think of something bigger than ourselves. Imagine it: this unborn child, or fetus, is alive. Is it human or not, I will not say, but it will become human! How amazing! Why would you want to destroy that? If a mother is not at risk, why would you want to choose death, over life?

I consider my rights worth losing, if it means that one person shall live. I would give up my right to vote, my right to freedom, if one soldier could come back home from Iraq, if one murder victim could be saved, if one unborn baby would be born, not killed.
The problem here is that you also seem to consider my rights worth losing.

Let us have the ability to discern what is right.

We have that ability - we just don't always agree on it.

Allow our government to discern the just from the unjust.

The government - made up of the people - does that.

Protect us from the thought that convenience is king, that personal rights are more important than right and wrong.

Personal rights are a necessary part of determining right and wrong. Forcing a human being to give up control of their body to another is wrong - it is slavery. Why is slavery a bad thing? Because persons have rights to their own body.

I consider my rights worth losing, if it means that one person shall live. I would give up my right to vote, my right to freedom, if one soldier could come back home from Iraq, if one murder victim could be saved, if one unborn baby would be born, not killed.

That's nice. Are you willing to force all others to conform to your views?

Would you deem it just, for a doctor to inject a lethal drug into a quadrapalegic, without the man's consent, just because it would be convenient for a parent?

Nope. Of course, a quadrapalegic has rights to his own body - same as the rest of us. If the quadrapalegic was not yet alive, but was living inside the doctor and leaching nutrients from him - causing irreversible changes to his body, and the doctor didn't want him there, then yes, I would say he could do it.

That is the same as an abortion: a person with no means of supporting himself, having death chose for him.

No, it isn't. The choice to have an abortion is the choice to end a pregnancy - a medical condition of the mother.

Meanwhile, a quadrapalegic generally can support himself - if by "support himself" you mean do some sort of work and get around in life. He also has the ability to make decisions - being a human person with all the attributes therein.

Imagine it: this unborn child, or fetus, is alive.

Define "alive".

Is it human or not, I will not say, but it will become human! How amazing! Why would you want to destroy that? If a mother is not at risk, why would you want to choose death, over life?

It is amazing, and many share your view of it. The question is whether or not you think it is right or just to force your view on another.

I absolutely think that scientific principles that are fundamental to daily life are easy enough to understand by anyone that cares. Newton's three laws are so important and so simple that they should be well known, but of course they are taken for granted. Same with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These documents can be read and understood by anyone that cares. We don't need to Latin to understand our rights anymore than we need Greek to understand Newton. If I claimed I didn't understand something about law, I'm sure it was criminal codes or tax codes or other legal documents written by lawyers for lawyers.

So you think someone can pick up a 200 year-old textbook and get a clear idea of the scientific fundamentals to daily life?

The Constitution was written in language that requires interpretation. An institution was expressly created to interpret and protect the Constitution. It has been doing so for over 200 years. You appear to feel that institution is intirely irrelevant.

To think you can look at the original documents and simply ignore the 200 years of interpretation is a peak of arrogance.

This is not to say that only lawyers can understand the Constitution. To the contrary, I said that any lay person could educate himself. It is not my fault that you refuse to be educated. You have already made up your mind and will only look at new material for tidbits that you think support what you have already decided.

Citations go the same way. Reading opinions is an interesting pastime, but it isn't essential to the basic understanding of what is contained in the Constitution, as amended. Repeating opinions may be a fundamental part of lawyering, but it doesn't make for a very interesting discussion.

Again, you can tell me the nuanced boundaries of freedom of speech without looking at anything but the Constitution itself? You can tell me what is "due process of law" of the top of your head?

I repeated bits of opinions that are particularly relevant to discussion. That you automatically dismiss anything that is a legal opinion is not my problem.
As I say more clearly below, you turn knowledge on its head when you complain about case citations.


Plus, there are always the dissenting opinions. These guys weren't wrong; they were outvoted. So, there's a lot of interesting stuff in the dissents, too.

So the dissent in Bush v. Gore is correct, it is just outvoted?

It doesn't matter that Rhenquist has been outvoted on the subject of Roe for his entire career?

You would make all law a matter of tabula rasa. Making us reinvent the wheel with every discussion. Instead, we can stand on the shoulders of those who came before us.

Going up the ladder, the Griswold case seemed to me to depend very heavily on the 9th amendment. I don't think I'm taking the majority opinion out of context by looking at the opening paragraph:

Looks to me like the Ninth amendment is what swayed the majority of the majority.

*sigh*

You didn't cite from the majority opinion. You cited from one concurrence.

And Griswold was a 7-2 decision. You cannot claim that a concurrence by 3 Justices is "the majority of the majority."

Regardless, the quote you cite still didn't say the right to privacy came fully from the 9th Amendment. Instead, it emphasized that it was a "liberty" under the 14th Amendment and that one of the supports for this was the 9th Amendment.

Let's take a shot at incorporation. From what I read in these references, and most clearly in the NRA citation, the incorporation that you mention is done selectively. The NRA author states:

While large portions of the Bill of Rights may have been incorporated, there are still portions that are not guaranteed. The right to privacy, as provided by the Ninth amendment, appears to be included.

Again, you are reading for comprehension but merely for bits that seem to fit your existing world view.

The 14th Amendment protects fundamental liberties from infringement by the states. Through selective incorporation, the Supreme Court has held that some of the liberties protected against state invasion by the 14th Amendment include those protected against federal invasion by the Bill of Rights. As all of the caselaw I cited earlier tried to explain, the Court has also held there to be other fundamental liberties not enumerated in the Bill of Rights that are protected by the 14th Amendment. The 9th Amendment has had fuck-all to do with most of these cases.

(In fact, Griswold is the only one of such cases that relies on the 9th Amendment at all.)

Anyway, this conversation is like beating my head against a wall. You appear to believe that one can approach the Constitution in utter ignorance of 200 years of history and form a valid opinion based on one's own reading of the document. If the same were posited about biology and 200 year old textbook, the claim would obviously be absurd.

The question is not that only lawyers can understand the law. The point is that only those who study the law may understand it. It is not too much to ask that one be prepared to discuss the most pertitent points of history of interpretation of the law.

I have never said that failure to cite cases made an opinion invalid. But you appear to suggest that citing cases makes my opinion invalid. That is to exult ignorance over knowledge, inexperience over wisdom, and guesswork over study.

Let us have the ability to discern what is right. Allow our government to discern the just from the unjust. Protect us from the thought that convenience is king, that personal rights are more important than right and wrong.

I consider my rights worth losing, if it means that one person shall live. I would give up my right to vote, my right to freedom, if one soldier could come back home from Iraq, if one murder victim could be saved, if one unborn baby would be born, not killed.


So Patrick Henry was being silly when he declared "Give me liberty or give me death (http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/henry.html)"?

Yours is exactly the type of thinking the Constitution protects our rights from.

Cat, I think the point is that if you say the Constitution can constantly be reinterpreted, you constantly get people like Chuck Schumer, who think that judges are essentially politicians and not judges - that the only way to get what one party wants is to stop legislating from the Congress, and stack the Supreme Court with yes men from one party or another.

You're hoping that we are protected by the slim thread of stare decisis.

While I don't believe that the Constitution should never be re-interpreted, I do find fault with playing fast and loose with re-intepretation.

I find incredible fault with our Congress over the past 40 years - they have a clear pattern of abdicating power to the Executive (War Powers, anyone?), and now they clearly want to abdicate power to the Judiciary.

I somehow doubt that was what the Founding Fathers intended.

No, it isn't. The choice to have an abortion is the choice to end a pregnancy - a medical condition of the mother.

How is a pregnancy a "medical condition." Medical conditions exist because of one of three things: 1.an unhuman object (something with a different amount of chromosomes and a different chromosonal setup) entering into our bodies, thus causing some effect or effects to occur or 2. A genetic mutation within the cells of a certain human beings, this mutation being completely transcendant (it is accounted for in every cell of the person), that causes a person to have differences from other human beings in a medically problematic manner or 3. An injury brought about by another person (broken bones, paralyzation). Therefore, a pregnancy is not a medical condition, it is the reproduction of life. The fetus inside is not a ladies own flesh, but a new creation, with a new genetic makeup. Egg cells are made for one purpose, as are sperm cells. There is a very simple solution to abortion in 99% of the cases: if you don't want to have a baby, don't have sex. This is not an infringement of a right. Just like you have the right to murder. You do. You can murder someone if you want to, just remember that there are certain consequences of murder. Likewise, pregnancy is a consequence of sex. If you don't want pregnancy, don't have sex.

Note: I do understand that rape occurs. I do not know if it is right to allow abortion in those circumstances or not. However, I do not think that we can use the exception, which is what rape is, to define what should be done with the majority of cases.

No, it isn't. The choice to have an abortion is the choice to end a pregnancy - a medical condition of the mother.

How is a pregnancy a "medical condition." Medical conditions exist because of one of three things: 1.an unhuman object (something with a different amount of chromosomes and a different chromosonal setup) entering into our bodies, thus causing some effect or effects to occur or 2. A genetic mutation within the cells of a certain human beings, this mutation being completely transcendant (it is accounted for in every cell of the person), that causes a person to have differences from other human beings in a medically problematic manner or 3. An injury brought about by another person (broken bones, paralyzation). Therefore, a pregnancy is not a medical condition, it is the reproduction of life. The fetus inside is not a ladies own flesh, but a new creation, with a new genetic makeup. Egg cells are made for one purpose, as are sperm cells. There is a very simple solution to abortion in 99% of the cases: if you don't want to have a baby, don't have sex. This is not an infringement of a right. Just like you have the right to murder. You do. You can murder someone if you want to, just remember that there are certain consequences of murder. Likewise, pregnancy is a consequence of sex. If you don't want pregnancy, don't have sex.

Note: I do understand that rape occurs. I do not know if it is right to allow abortion in those circumstances or not. However, I do not think that we can use the exception, which is what rape is, to define what should be done with the majority of cases.
:rolleyes: Go back to the dark ages where you came from.

it's simple cause and effect.

and if that's the dark ages then i'm all the way back in biblical times!

I have never said that failure to cite cases made an opinion invalid. But you appear to suggest that citing cases makes my opinion invalid. That is to exult ignorance over knowledge, inexperience over wisdom, and guesswork over study.
I can sit through a hell of a lot of abuse without getting upset. But this is too much. I have only tried to make one point regarding citations in this thread. When a list of citations is offered with little additional comment, the conversation ceases. It becomes a debate. Now, the matter cited is more important than the thoughts of the presenter; the two can't be one in the same. It's my fault for not wanting to debate, but to discuss.

I will happily endorse ANY anti-choice laws that guarantee AND provide for the good health and welfare of the unwanted child that is being forcibly brought into this world against the wishes of perspective mother AND father.

Until that happens, abortion is the right thing to do with an unwanted pregnancy.

:cool:

I can sit through a hell of a lot of abuse without getting upset. But this is too much. I have only tried to make one point regarding citations in this thread. When a list of citations is offered with little additional comment, the conversation ceases. It becomes a debate. Now, the matter cited is more important than the thoughts of the presenter; the two can't be one in the same. It's my fault for not wanting to debate, but to discuss.

You are claiming that supporting his opinion on a legal argument using experts on the subject of the argument invalidates his opinion. You certainly inferred that. His response is an accurate assessment of how silly that is and nearly perfectly matches my response to the same. In debates and discussion people should support their assertions. You keep making assertions that defy the language, history and interpretation of the US Constitutition and you act like no one should call you on it. You're not here to discuss. You're here to tell.

it's simple cause and effect.

and if that's the dark ages then i'm all the way back in biblical times!

I agree with you. Unfortunately the kind of changes you wish to effect are the kinds of things the Savior was battling to stop. Jesus was a strong advocate of personal responsibility and leave matters of the spirit OUTSIDE of government.

He certainly wouldn't punish children in order to teach the 'sluts' a lesson.

No, it isn't. The choice to have an abortion is the choice to end a pregnancy - a medical condition of the mother.

How is a pregnancy a "medical condition." Medical conditions exist because of one of three things: 1.an unhuman object (something with a different amount of chromosomes and a different chromosonal setup) entering into our bodies, thus causing some effect or effects to occur or 2. A genetic mutation within the cells of a certain human beings, this mutation being completely transcendant (it is accounted for in every cell of the person), that causes a person to have differences from other human beings in a medically problematic manner or 3. An injury brought about by another person (broken bones, paralyzation). Therefore, a pregnancy is not a medical condition,

Wow, do you know how many diseases you just wiped out of the "medical condition" category, not to mention other medical conditions that aren't disease states?

Apparentlly, osteoporosis is not a medical condition. Neither is Alzheimer's, except in the few rare genetic cases. Menopause and depression are no longer medical conditions, and neither is shock. Diabetes? Not a medical condition, according to you. Atherosclerosis and heart attack? Almost never medical conditions, by your definition. Kidney or liver failure? Not medical conditions. A heart-valve defect? Not a medical condition. Poor vision? Not a medical condition.

Please come back when you have a clue.