Just maybe the beginnig of the end?

[Navy Pride]

I already addressed this in post #17. Get a clue. Get a life. Get something.

Don't reference some stupid post.............Cite the paragaph and line in the constitution where the right to privacy is guareenteed......

 

[blastula]

The basic idea of the 4th Amendment is privacy. Every detail of every aspect of privacy does not need to be stated. It would require far too much to do this and would lead to too much repression. Our Constitution was written to be somewhat vague for this reason. Only a narrow mind could not see that.

Alex, calling me "narrow mind" is unnecessary. Please be civil in the debate.

Even though I agree with Navy Pride that there is nothing in the constitution that mentioned about "privacy", but for the sake of argument I did give you the benefit of doubt in my previous post that, granted, even if there is a privacy clause, the 4th amendment did not grant absolute right to privacy in term of the constitutional right to be secure.

If you commit an offence, the govt is empowered by the constitution with probable cause and upon a warrant issued, to search your person and seize your property. At the time of R v W, abortion was against the law in Texas except during medical emergency situation. At that time Roe was pregnant but did not have abortion. She was not charged with anything and no search or seizure was done unto her. So to plead the 4th is a moot point. The majority opinion in RvW had wrongfully and forcefully squeezed a privacy clause out of the 4th to justify their ruling

How about the 14th Amendment?

Nothing in the 14th suggests anything about privacy either. Again, the 14th is not absolute as denoted by the phrase "without due process of law" and "equal protection". That means if you commit a crime the govt cannot deprave you of your life, liberty, or property without due process and equal protection. Once due process and equal protection are given and satisfied, yo batcha..the govt can definitely take your life, liberty, or property depending on the type of crimes you committed. Therefore, before RvW the state govt should have that constitutional right to punish any person that committed a crime, including abortion, after probable cause for warrant, due process, and equal protection are satisfied. But the SCOTUS made the wrong decision, and the ruling actually was unconstitutional.

Why would someone want the government making decisions for people anyway?....This gives the government far too much power over people. If you need someone making your decisions for you, so be it, but do not impose your childishness on anyone else.

Don't you want the govt to make decisions in terms of legislating laws against crimes? Don't you want you and your family to be protected by laws against such things as burglary, robbery, assualt, rape, and murder? Do you think the govt is far too much powerful and is imposing our childishness to legislates laws against criminals?

Anti-abortionists only want to impose there will on other people. If abortion was ever to be illegal (big if), all prolifers would soon change their tune once their taxes go up to fund all the unwanted children.

I sincerely and truly believe that the unborn is a human being just as I believe you are a human being without requiring proof of your exixtence or personhood.

I also believe there is a higher law that supercede man's law. No offence intended, you may see abortion as terminating a pregnacy but I truly believe the act of abortion is murder based on higher law. Therefore, it is wrong to think about human life in terms of taxes.

Who will care and pay for all these unwanted children?

There will always be cause in this world for caring of people in needs for the perfection of humanity. Therefore, to murder those who are weak and vulnerable is never justified whatsoever.

Do you really believe that women will just stop seeking abortions if they become illegal? Is the health, and possibly the life, of the women seeking an abortion better maintained in a regulated clinic or in an alley?

Between the two evils, one must not serve two masters.

Therefore, in order to serve good, one must choose the course that protect the weak and defendless from deadly harm. The other choice is up to them who have mind to think and ears to listen to seek for the right answer. Isn't that what pro-choice is supposed to be?

Why is it really any of your business what someone else does with their body?

Are we not our brother's keeper? Since to me abortion is an act of murder, am I not to care about what have befallen unto my helpless fellow human beings?

 

[Engimo]

Nothing in the 14th suggests anything about privacy either. Again, the 14th is not absolute as denoted by the phrase "without due process of law" and "equal protection". That means if you commit a crime the govt cannot deprave you of your life, liberty, or property without due process and equal protection. Once due process and equal protection are given and satisfied, yo batcha..the govt can definitely take your life, liberty, or property depending on the type of crimes you committed. Therefore, before RvW the state govt should have that constitutional right to punish any person that committed a crime, including abortion, after probable cause for warrant, due process, and equal protection are satisfied. But the SCOTUS made the wrong decision, and the ruling actually was unconstitutional.

And I'd like to see what some constitutional scholars have to say on the subject. Not to sound abrasive, but I'm not going to take your word on the unconstitutionality of Roe vs. Wade.

Don't you want the govt to make decisions in terms of legislating laws against crimes? Don't you want you and your family to be protected by laws against such things as burglary, robbery, assualt, rape, and murder? Do you think the govt is far too much powerful and is imposing our childishness to legislates laws against criminals?

I'm sorry, but this analogy simply doesn't hold. Enforcing laws that punish criminals is the job of the government, as it is taking action against one person for infringing upon the rights of another. Being citizens of this country binds us to a contract that says, "Hey, if you do something to that guy, we're gonna do something to you." - this is not the case with abortion. Fetuses have no legal rights, and are arguably a part of the mother, while criminals and victims are private, sentient citizens. The government has no obligation or grounds to protect rights that do not exist.

I sincerely and truly believe that the unborn is a human being just as I believe you are a human being without requiring proof of your exixtence or personhood.

I also believe there is a higher law that supercede man's law. No offence intended, you may see abortion as terminating a pregnacy but I truly believe the act of abortion is murder based on higher law. Therefore, it is wrong to think about human life in terms of taxes.

Your "higher law" cannot be used as a legal justification for creating U.S. policy. We live in a secular country, I am sorry.

 

[blastula]

You don't need a constitutional scholars to understand the basic of what is written in the constitution if you do understand your English.

Why is it not the case with abortion? During the time of R vW, abortion was not legal in Texas and that was the law. So, according to the constitution, the govt could search the person and seize the property with probable cause and warrant issued. If you commit a crime, depending on the severity of your crime, your right to life, liberty, and property will be in jeopardy after you are charged and found guilty through a due process and equal protection to defend yourself.

The Roe in R v W wasn't even persecuted by the govt at all none whatsoever because she did not have abortion at that time. So all the talk about the 4th and 14th are moot in this case. Roe was used by the proponent of abortion in an attempt to overturn the abortion law in Texas and the ruling has effect nationwide because the case was appealed to the supreme court. Why they used Roe I don't know. Was it because abortion was so rare that they couldn't find a woman who had abortion and persecuted by the govt? They tried to used a doctor who had performed illegal abortion and was under persecution by Texas govt under the abortion law but the same supreme court rejected his case for lack of standing to sue. In our court of law, you cannot sue for something that has not yet occurred or never occurred such as in the case of Roe. Yet, the supreme court simply ignored this fundament principle of law iunstead of issuing an injunction to address her grievances.

You are totally wrong to say that "Fetuses have no legal rights". Even SCOTUS in R v W objected to your statement as follows: "For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

Nowhere in the constitution did it state that the unborn is not a person and therefore without right. Even SCOTUS did not make an attempt to resolve first the fundamental question of exactly when they believe human life begins before allowing the life to be killed. This was what SCOTUS said: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

To kill a life not knowing when human being begins to exist is simply callous. And the supreme court did just that, can you believe that?

Higher law is what compels humanity to do right and correct man's law when it falls short. Otherwise, we would still have slaves in this country and some people, including women, weren't allowed to vote.

 

[Engimo]

You don't need a constitutional scholars to understand the basic of what is written in the constitution if you do understand your English.

Yes, but the essence of the Roe vs. Wade decision is based on an interpretation of the Constitution - not just the plain English of it. I'd like to see some criticism of Roe vs. Wade by some constitutional law experts, please.

You are totally wrong to say that "Fetuses have no legal rights". Even SCOTUS in R v W objected to your statement as follows: "For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

Nowhere in the constitution did it state that the unborn is not a person and therefore without right. Even SCOTUS did not make an attempt to resolve first the fundamental question of exactly when they believe human life begins before allowing the life to be killed. This was what SCOTUS said: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

But the fact of the matter is that fetuses have not been born. They have no birth certificate - they are not citizens. Whether or not they are to be considered "human" is a corrollary argument that would establish their human rights. As non-citizens, fetuses have no inherent rights under the constitution - last time I checked, you had to be born to be considered a citizen.

To kill a life not knowing when human being begins to exist is simply callous. And the supreme court did just that, can you believe that?

Yes.

Higher law is what compels humanity to do right and correct man's law when it falls short. Otherwise, we would still have slaves in this country and some people, including women, weren't allowed to vote.

Untrue. One does not need to be religious or subscribe to the existence of a "higher law" to oppose slavery or promote universal sufferage. Like I said before, your "higher law" is religious and thus has no place in determining U.S. policy and law.

 

[blastula]

You should be intelligent enough to be able to read the constitution and understand what it says. Don't depend on constitutional law experts because some can put a spin into their interpretation, even so the now deceased supreme court Justice Blackmum. I'm not asking you to take my word for it too. You have the quotes, just read it without any spin.

Who says you have to be born to become a human being? Birth is just an event that transpire during a stage of human development, that's all.
Birth certificate simply certifies that your are born. It does not mean that you have now just become a human being.

Yes, you have to be born to be a citizen of US. But that does not mean that you are not a human being if you are not a citizen. Otherwise, visitors from other countries who are not citizens are non-human by your definition and thus have no right to life?

Higher law is univeral law that transcends humanity, You can be a christian, muslim, buddhist, or secular person, higher law compels humanity for justice where there is injustice. That's why we have civil rights movement to right what was wrong.

 

[Engimo]

Who says you have to be born to become a human being? Birth is just an event that transpire during a stage of human development, that's all.
Birth certificate simply certifies that your are born. It does not mean that you have now just become a human being.

Yes, you have to be born to be a citizen of US. But that does not mean that you are not a human being if you are not a citizen. Otherwise, visitors from other countries who are not citizens are non-human by your definition and thus have no right to life?

I didn't say that. I said that they have no constitutional rights. The question of whether or not they have human rights is the issue up for debate here.

Higher law is univeral law that transcends humanity, You can be a christian, muslim, buddhist, or secular person, higher law compels humanity for justice where there is injustice. That's why we have civil rights movement to right what was wrong.

Then that's not "higher law", that's simply human morality. Don't say "higher law", it has implications of religious-ness.

 

[blastula]

Now what constitutional rights are you specifically referring to? I'm sure you're not taking about the right to vote or drink.

The human rights in debate here is about right to life. The constitution is silence on this matter because it is beyond the scope of the constitution. Just because the constitution did not cover the right to life question with regards to when human life begins, it is not to be taken to mean that the unborn has no constitutional right.

The constitution explicitly did say that what is not covered in the constitution is left up to the people. Therefore you can't just say if it's not there then they have no rights.

Morality is the principle of right and wrong. Higher law compels from the universal conscience of humanity's conviction for justice where injustice is done.

 

[steen]

The human rights in debate here is about right to life.

There is no such right to life, at least not to the point where it is allowed to use a person's bodily resources against their will.

Morality is the principle of right and wrong.

And it most certainly is wrong for you to try to enslave women for the sake of mindless tissue.

Higher law compels from the universal conscience of humanity's conviction for justice where injustice is done.

So when prolife inflicts injustice on women, we should stand up to your bullying oppression of women? Sounds good to me.

 

[tryreading]

The Roe in R v W wasn't even persecuted by the govt at all none whatsoever because she did not have abortion at that time. So all the talk about the 4th and 14th are moot in this case. Roe was used by the proponent of abortion in an attempt to overturn the abortion law in Texas and the ruling has effect nationwide because the case was appealed to the supreme court. Why they used Roe I don't know. Was it because abortion was so rare that they couldn't find a woman who had abortion and persecuted by the govt?

Obviously, they needed a pregnant woman actively seeking an abortion for the lawsuit whose rights were being denied by not having access to abortion in Texas. A woman who already had had an abortion couldn't sue because she couldn't have one, could she?

Roe (McCorvey) was actively seeking an abortion, went to a clinic to have it done. The clinic was closed, so by lying to her doctor and lawyers that she was raped, she figured they would win their case to legalize abortion. She wanted an abortion and agreed to work with lawyers who wanted to sue for a woman's right.

 

[blastula]

Originally Posted by tryreading:
Obviously, they needed a pregnant woman actively seeking an abortion for the lawsuit whose rights were being denied by not having access to abortion in Texas. A woman who already had had an abortion couldn't sue because she couldn't have one, could she?

Roe (McCorvey) was actively seeking an abortion, went to a clinic to have it done. The clinic was closed, so by lying to her doctor and lawyers that she was raped, she figured they would win their case to legalize abortion. She wanted an abortion and agreed to work with lawyers who wanted to sue for a woman's right.

A woman who already had had an abortion could have gone to Dr. Hallford (sp?) who was performing illegal abortion at that time. Dr. Hallford was prosecuted for his crime. If the woman was not prosecuted then there would be no case. If she was prosecuted under Texas' abortion law then she might try to claimed that her 4th and 14th amendment rights were violated if the govt did not follow the constitutional procedure of obtaining warrant on probable cause, provide due process, and equal protection. Beyond that, and if the supreme court was to follow the constitution, the Texas abortion law was within the letters of the constitution.

I think there was also an exclusion clause in Texas abortion law for rape, therefore that isssue was not addressed. For Roe to have standing to sue is like a potential prostitute or drug user to sue the govt for denial of protitution profession or lack of access to ilegal drugs where it is against the law to have them in the first place.

If they felt the constitution is lacking in addressing women's reproductive right issue, the proper way to do it is to amend the constitution and not try to hijack it through the supreme court..
==========================================================

Originally Posted by steen:
There is no such right to life, at least not to the point where it is allowed to use a person's bodily resources against their will.
And it most certainly is wrong for you to try to enslave women for the sake of mindless tissue.
So when prolife inflicts injustice on women, we should stand up to your bullying oppression of women? Sounds good to me.

Right to life is a natural right that require no human intervention after conception. Abortion right is not a natural right, therefore it requires human intervention to effect an unnatural termination of a newly created life.

It is by nature that women are endowed with human reproductive function. Therefore, we can't help it if saving the unborn means requiring natural use of the person's bodily resources. I'm not sure about the part regarding "against their will". If they truly have any will, they certainly did not have enough to keep them from getting pregnant in the first place.

If I wanted to enslave women, why would I choose pregnant women over women who are not pregnant?

If you think prolife (I don't consider myself prolife or anything though) inflicts injustice on women, you can certainly stand up against us, legally of course. After all, this is what this country is all about, isn't it?

 

[steen]

Right to life is a natural right that require no human intervention after conception.

Ah, really? So it is conditional? The kidney patient STILL dies if he doesn't get your kidney, so obviously he didn't have a "right " that extended to taking a person's bodily resources to stay alive.

Abortion right is not a natural right, therefore it requires human intervention to effect an unnatural termination of a newly created life.

Ah, but that is talking about the abortion (other than your argument being nonsense). That has nothing to do with the "right to life" of the recipient of bodily resources. WHy are you changing the subject?

I would recommend that you go to this poll, where prolifers extensively ended up declaring that there was **NO** right to life:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6031

It is by nature that women are endowed with human reproductive function.

So the idea of men having sperm, that is just a fantasy?

Therefore, we can't help it if saving the unborn means requiring natural use of the person's bodily resources.

Yes we can, by allowing her the same right to control her bodily resources as you do. Now you are arguing for her to be a second-class citizen. In the past it was "the negro can't help being inferior, and we help him by bringing him from savagry to civilixzation." Now it is "but the woman is made that way and therefore must submit to our idea of the use of her body."

SAME DAMN THING.

I'm not sure about the part regarding "against their will". If they truly have any will, they certainly did not have enough to keep them from getting pregnant in the first place.

Ah, so sex is only for procreation and if people wouldn't want lung cancer, then they wouldn't start smoking. Your argument is still silly and without foundation in reality,. Your nice, fictitious world only exists inside your own head. That makes you a demagogue.

If I wanted to enslave women, why would I choose pregnant women over women who are not pregnant?

You find forced pregnancy a great way to enslave women. It provids excellent control over them.

 

[tryreading]

A woman who already had had an abortion could have gone to Dr. Hallford (sp?) who was performing illegal abortion at that time. Dr. Hallford was prosecuted for his crime. If the woman was not prosecuted then there would be no case. If she was prosecuted under Texas' abortion law then she might try to claimed that her 4th and 14th amendment rights were violated if the govt did not follow the constitutional procedure of obtaining warrant on probable cause, provide due process, and equal protection. Beyond that, and if the supreme court was to follow the constitution, the Texas abortion law was within the letters of the constitution.

I think there was also an exclusion clause in Texas abortion law for rape, therefore that isssue was not addressed. For Roe to have standing to sue is like a potential prostitute or drug user to sue the govt for denial of protitution profession or lack of access to ilegal drugs where it is against the law to have them in the first place.

If they felt the constitution is lacking in addressing women's reproductive right issue, the proper way to do it is to amend the constitution and not try to hijack it through the supreme court.

She was suing for the right to have an abortion. A non-pregnant woman would not have been taken seriously by the court.

From what I have read about Texas law at that time, the only legal abortion was for protection of the woman's life.

They decided that the Constitution does provide for her right to control her body, based partly on her right to privacy. The document does not have to address abortion specifically for it to be legal.

 

[tryreading]

A woman who already had had an abortion could have gone to Dr. Hallford (sp?) who was performing illegal abortion at that time. Dr. Hallford was prosecuted for his crime. If the woman was not prosecuted then there would be no case. If she was prosecuted under Texas' abortion law then she might try to claimed that her 4th and 14th amendment rights were violated if the govt did not follow the constitutional procedure of obtaining warrant on probable cause, provide due process, and equal protection. Beyond that, and if the supreme court was to follow the constitution, the Texas abortion law was within the letters of the constitution.

I think there was also an exclusion clause in Texas abortion law for rape, therefore that isssue was not addressed. For Roe to have standing to sue is like a potential prostitute or drug user to sue the govt for denial of protitution profession or lack of access to ilegal drugs where it is against the law to have them in the first place.

If they felt the constitution is lacking in addressing women's reproductive right issue, the proper way to do it is to amend the constitution and not try to hijack it through the supreme court.

She was suing for the right to have an abortion. A non-pregnant woman would not have been taken seriously by the court.

From what I have read about Texas law at that time, from McCorvey's book, the only legal abortion was for protection of the woman's life.

They decided that the Constitution does provide for her right to control her body, based partly on her right to privacy. The document does not have to address abortion specifically for it to be legal.

 

[Navy Pride]

She was suing for the right to have an abortion. A non-pregnant woman would not have been taken seriously by the court.

From what I have read about Texas law at that time, from McCorvey's book, the only legal abortion was for protection of the woman's life.

They decided that the Constitution does provide for her right to control her body, based partly on her right to privacy. The document does not have to address abortion specifically for it to be legal.

She was a very young woman who was brainwashed by radical feminists......She has said over and over again that the abortion she had was the biggest mistake of her life............

 

[tryreading]

She was a very young woman who was brainwashed by radical feminists......She has said over and over again that the abortion she had was the biggest mistake of her life............

She was actively seeking an abortion before she met the lawyers. This is what she says in her own book.

She can say whatever she wants to now, but she also worked in the abortion industry for years, well after the 'very young brainwashed woman' stage.

 

[Navy Pride]

She was actively seeking an abortion before she met the lawyers. This is what she says in her own book.

She can say whatever she wants to now, but she also worked in the abortion industry for years, well after the 'very young brainwashed woman' stage.

Like many young women she has suffered from depression, been hospitalized for it and said that she was coerced into filing the lawsuit by radical feminists and that it was the greatest mistake of her life.......

 

[Engimo]

Like many young women she has suffered from depression, been hospitalized for it and said that she was coerced into filing the lawsuit by radical feminists and that it was the greatest mistake of her life.......

Something that is entirely irrelevant to the legal outcome of the case.

 

[tryreading]

Like many young women she has suffered from depression, been hospitalized for it and said that she was coerced into filing the lawsuit by radical feminists and that it was the greatest mistake of her life.......

She freely offered the lie that she was raped to her lawyers, a lie she created, hoping that would improve her case. This does not indicate coercion.

Thirty years later, many of us remember acts that we are ashamed of. If we had it to do over... But that is not relevant now.

 

[Navy Pride]

Something that is entirely irrelevant to the legal outcome of the case.

Yeah, she does not matter.You lefties got what you wanted out of her.....

 

[Navy Pride]

She freely offered the lie that she was raped to her lawyers, a lie she created, hoping that would improve her case. This does not indicate coercion.

Thirty years later, many of us remember acts that we are ashamed of. If we had it to do over... But that is not relevant now.

She was very young and impressionable and was taken advantage of by the readical feminest movement...........

 

[blastula]

Ah, really? So it is conditional? The kidney patient STILL dies if he doesn't get your kidney, so obviously he didn't have a "right " that extended to taking a person's bodily resources to stay alive.
Ah, but that is talking about the abortion (other than your argument being nonsense). That has nothing to do with the "right to life" of the recipient of bodily resources. WHy are you changing the subject?

I would recommend that you go to this poll, where prolifers extensively ended up declaring that there was **NO** right to life:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6031

So the idea of men having sperm, that is just a fantasy?
Yes we can, by allowing her the same right to control her bodily resources as you do. Now you are arguing for her to be a second-class citizen. In the past it was "the negro can't help being inferior, and we help him by bringing him from savagry to civilixzation." Now it is "but the woman is made that way and therefore must submit to our idea of the use of her body."

SAME DAMN THING.
Ah, so sex is only for procreation and if people wouldn't want lung cancer, then they wouldn't start smoking. Your argument is still silly and without foundation in reality,. Your nice, fictitious world only exists inside your own head. That makes you a demagogue.
You find forced pregnancy a great way to enslave women. It provids excellent control over them.

The analogy between kidney patient and pregnancy is illogical. For the sake of argument, if the kidney patient dies because he doesn't get my kidney, your argument failed because nobody causes him to have a kidney disease. However, in pregnancy the unborn is conceived when the woman had sex with a man. Also, you are talking about removing an organ from one human to another. In pregnancy, there is no organ removal from the woman. There are plenty of other difference, but you should get the point about your illogical attempt.

When abortion is concerned, it means one thing: the death of the unborn human being. When you proclaim women's right to abortion you are conversely denouncing the right of the unborn to live. Since abortion is legal in this country, women who want to abort have that right to do so. Hence, right to life of the unborn is the primary subject. Therefore, you are the one who is trying to skirt the issue.

The right to control her bodily resources should never include taking another innocent human life. Nobody is trying to make women to be second-class citizens. I agree that slavery and aborted pregnancy have some parallel. The pretention of helping negroes from savagery to civilization for self-serving goals is akin to the propaganda of "pro-choice" from abortion of so-called mind-less mass to convenience.

 

[tryreading]

She was very young and impressionable and was taken advantage of by the readical feminest movement...........

You already said this.

 

[tryreading]

The analogy between kidney patient and pregnancy is illogical. For the sake of argument, if the kidney patient dies because he doesn't get my kidney, your argument failed because nobody causes him to have a kidney disease.

Right to life. What happened to his right to life? Regardless of whether you approve of the analogy, does he not have this right? If not, why not?

 

[Felicity]

Right to life. What happened to his right to life? Regardless of whether you approve of the analogy, does he not have this right? If not, why not?

I find this counter so weak (that's not personal to you, tryreading...it's a common counter...).

Right to life means a natural right to exist without intentional interruption. It by no means asserts you MUST live at all costs or that you MUST be "provided for" if you are in need of something. It is simply the fact that ALL other so-called "rights" are dependent upon you as a being--living. You must have life for anything else to be relevant.


Here's something for ya...
If I was his siamese twin--and he was going to die without the use of my kidney--he would have a right to use my extra one. To deny him his life because that kidney is mine and I don't want him using it anymore would be wrong. I would be intentionally ending his life by not sustaining his life that I NATURALLY am responsible for by virtue of the circumstances of my own life.